epi-learning.org

I believe this may be because e.g. drafting claims in one's native language is not easy if one normally does not do it. I don't think any native speaker could just write a proper claim on day one of joining the patent profession. It needs practice. For instance, I don't think that English native speakers (not part of the patent profession) pay much attention to the difference between consisting and comprising. A patent attorney (and trainee) who does his/her daily work in English would be very much aware of the difference regardless of whether he/she is a native speaker. I doubt that if one does not normally draft/or do patent work in his/her native language that one is aware of the patent specific terms needed for drafting etc in his/her native language. That said, I think it is not so much the fact that one has to read all the exams in a non-native language, but the additional difficulty is to then also be confronted with a different technical field. For instance, a trainee specialising in chemistry/biotechnology is not necessarily familiar with all the specific terms used in the mechanical field and it will likely take longer to understand the invention due too little practice (in the mechanical field). In that respect the proposal to have technology specific modules is very much welcomed as they will allow to test technology specific areas of e.g. drafting. I believe technology specific exams will also allow to better judge whether someone is "fit to practise". After all you want to be considered "fit to practise" in your area of expertise. For instance, a trainee patent attorney in the life sciences should be able to draft a Markush claim to be considered "fit to practise". Markush claims are however something that never shows up under the current exam format because it is considered too technology specific and thereby putting candidates with a background in mechanics/electronics at a disadvantage.