Following submission of written materials in application, I was invited to attend a first interview, which consisted of a timed assessment that was submitted at the end of the session. Further invited to a second interview which consisted of a three-person panel (one senior examiner, one group leader, and one HR manager).
The technical questions involved matching four electrical switches to some claims which had been prepared. It was clear these claims hadn't been written by an attorney, as they were simple and some of the features were contained entirely within other claims.
The HR manager then asked some "behavioural" questions.
A couple of weeks later I received notice of the outcome: I'd been unsuccessful, apparently having fallen short on my answers to the behavioural questions. I'd scored almost full marks on the technical assessments.
I find it utterly reprehensible that the IPO operates its recruitment in this way. That is, using behavioural questions as a disqualifying element rather than merely an element to aggregate against the others.
The UK IPO, particularly where patent applications are concerned, is seen as a pariah in the IP world, with severe quality control problems concerning recruitment resulting in worthless examination reports. This to the point that clients are now filing first in Europe, and not the UK, despite the UK IPO's fees being typically x10 cheaper than the EPO.
I advise steering well clear of this institution, unless you really need the security of a civil service job, and the good pension.
In attending the in-person interview, they claim to refund "reasonable travel costs". However, if you're considering driving, take care that they will only pay up to 150mi (return) and subtract the first £50 of the claim. This results in barely covering petrol, nevermind refunding the actual HMRC approved rate of 45p/mi.
