The material below is presented as ‘frequently-asked questions’, or ‘FAQs’. It is designed to respond to initial queries about the review and its purpose. We will add to and update the FAQs over time to maintain their currency and usefulness as the review progresses.
What is the purpose and focus of the Review?
The purpose of IPReg’s Education Review is to ensure that qualification routes into the trade mark attorney and patent attorney professions remain high-quality, accessible, sustainable and responsive to current and projected changes in professional practice, employer and consumer needs.
The Review is taking a ‘fundamentals approach’ to explore what needs to inform its proposals for any change and its eventual outputs and outcomes. This includes to understand changes in each profession’s scope of practice. The Review will initially explore the professional competencies, or capabilities, required for contemporary practice in each profession at the point of registration, informed by stakeholder insights and feedback on the changing needs of employers, consumers and models of service delivery.
The Review will build on indications of changing need to identify whether and how qualification routes need to change. It will also consider whether and how IPReg accreditation requirements and processes need to be updated to reflect these changing needs.
The Review hinges on securing stakeholder input and feedback. Information on responding to our Call for Evidence and Feedback is available here. The findings and outcomes of previous reviews of the professions’ qualification routes will also be used to inform this Review.
What is IPReg’s role in education?
The Intellectual Property Regulation Board (IPReg) was set up in 2010 to enact the regulatory functions delegated to it by the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) and the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (CITMA). IPReg has delegated regulatory functions and responsibilities specifically relating to education. These derive from the following legislation:
- Legal Services Act, 2007; section 21
- Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988; section 275A
- Trade Marks Act, 1994; section 83A.
Under these arrangements, IPReg has the authority to set education and training requirements for individuals seeking to become an authorised trade mark or patent attorney in the UK. It determines the qualifications, experience and training required for registration. It also ensures that education standards for the professions align with the following regulatory objectives set by the Legal Services Board (LSB): protecting public interest, promoting competition, and improving access to justice.
IPReg is accountable to the LSB for how it enacts its regulatory responsibilities, including its education functions. Any proposals for change arising from the Education Review will require LSB approval before they can be implemented.
Further information on the regulatory context in which we are undertaking the Review is available here.
What is within the scope of the Review?
Specific focuses in the Education Review are outlined below.
- Identifying the ‘day-one’ professional capabilities respectively required for future registration and practice as a patent attorney and trade mark attorney.
- Identifying capabilities that can appropriately be developed at post-registration level, depending on individual registrants’ scope of practice, practice environment and role.
- Exploring how professionalism and fulfilling professional ethical duties are fully embedded within the capability requirements and qualification routes for each profession.
- Exploring the implications of developments in generative AI and LawTech for the professions’ education and practice.
- Reviewing best practice in contemporary approaches to professional and higher education and assessment, with a particular focus on high-stakes assessments, supporting trainees’ work-based learning, and the needs of those supporting trainees’ learning and development.
- Embedding a consideration of diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEIB) issues, including to understand and address current barriers to entry, optimise potential enablers for widening access to the professions, and explore the potential role of apprenticeships in achieving this).
- Reviewing how, as IPReg, we maintain rigour, proportionality and accountability in how we fulfil our delegated regulatory education functions, including in how we enact our accreditation requirements and processes for qualification routes.
What is not in scope of the Review?
We are progressing activity with partners to consider the equivalence of the new European Qualifying Examinations (EQE) to qualify as a European patent attorney (EPA) with current requirements to be eligible to apply for admission to IPReg’s register as a UK patent attorney. This sits outside the scope of the Review because it is a current need, rather than being future-focused. A joint statement with Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) and the Patent Examination Board (PEB) on the EQE is available here. We will provide further updates. We are keen to explore the interface between changing UK, European and global needs within each profession within the Education Review.
IPReg introduced new CPD requirements for registrants in July 2023. Our guidance on the requirements was produced following IPReg’s Continuing Competence Thematic Review in 2024. Given these recent changes, we do not intend that IPReg’s CPD requirements will form a focus of the Education Review. However, it will be useful to explore how qualification routes prepare trainees for their future engagement with IPReg’s CPD requirements. This includes the requirements’ focus on critical reflection, engaging in CPD activity to meet individual development needs, and the outcomes, value and impact of CPD activity within registrants’ practice.
IPReg recognises that CITMA and CIPA, as well as other stakeholders, provide valuable post-registration learning and development opportunities for members of each profession. It is not the intention for post-registration education to be considered within the Review, except where this fits with how IPReg fulfils its regulatory responsibilities.
What are the intended outputs of the Review?
The key intended outputs from the Education Review are as follows:
- Updated IPReg competence or capability frameworks for trade mark attorneys and patent attorneys to which qualification routes will need to map from an agreed point in the future.
- Updated education and training standards against which IPReg will consider qualification routes for (re-)accreditation from an agreed point in the future.
- An updated quality assurance and enhancement method through which IPReg will consider qualification routes for (re-)accreditation against our updated capability frameworks and education standards from an agreed point in the future.
The precise nature and content of the intended outputs will be determined through the Review and any proposed changes to qualification route requirements arising from it. This process of development will be strongly informed by stakeholder collaboration, input and feedback.
Will apprenticeships play a role in the Review?
IPReg has indicated its support for apprenticeships being explored as contributing to qualification routes into the patent and trade mark attorney professions; see here. This is to achieve an increased focus on diversity and inclusion within the professions and to enhance responsiveness to employers’ workforce needs.
IPReg will continue to engage with current activity to develop a patent scientist/engineer degree apprenticeship in ways that fit with its regulatory functions.
The principles of modern apprenticeships, if not the formal structures and funding streams of apprenticeships, should also have relevance to the Education Review. For example, this could be to achieve a strengthened integration of trainees’ work experience, learning and assessment to develop and to support a focus on how they demonstrate the updated professional capabilities required for qualification in response to meet changing professional practice, employer and consumer needs.
How is the Review addressing diversity and inclusion issues?
One of the drivers for undertaking the Education Review is how entry routes into the trade mark and patent attorney professions can be widened, while ensuring that high education and professional standards are upheld. We are keen to understand current barriers and how enablers to increased diversity and inclusion in each profession can be optimised. This includes in terms of individuals’ experience as trainees and as trainees progress within their chosen profession after qualification and registration.
Widening entry to the professions is one of the key themes of our Call for Evidence and Feedback. Information on this theme is available here. Information on how to respond to the Call is available here.
We have developed a diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEIB) framework to underpin our approach to addressing these issues in the Review. The framework is available here.
Will the Review lead to changes to current qualification routes?
The potential need for, and the nature of any changes to, the current qualification routes into each profession will be considered within the Review. Change is not a given. Due consideration of whether and what kind of change will be needed must be fully informed by stakeholder input and feedback on changing professional practice, employer and consumer needs and on any potential changes to existing qualification routes to meet these changing needs.
Other imperatives to explore relating to potential change are how
- The sustainability of qualification routes is maintained.
- Routes into each profession are upheld.
- High education and professional standards are upheld.
Securing stakeholder input and feedback on these key topics forms a strong focus of our Education Review Call for Evidence and Feedback. Information on responding to the Call is available here. Any proposals for change, informed by an analysis of responses to the Call, will be subject to formal consultation before they are finalised. In turn, the implementation of any changes will be in the future. The development of plans for implementation will involve collaboration with stakeholders. The plans themselves will include sufficient lead-in time before any changes take effect and will have a strong focus on providing clarity and certainty for all parties.
Information on current qualification routes into the professions is available here.
Information on IPReg’s current approach to accrediting education and examination provision is available here.
Will the Review affect current trainees?
IPReg’s Education Review is future-focused. It is not about making short-term changes. We are very aware that any future changes risk creating uncertainty and will be potentially distressing and disruptive for current and prospective trainees, as well as for qualification route providers and employers. Any changes arising from the Review will be strongly informed by stakeholder input and feedback, while timeframes for enacting any changes will be agreed collaboratively and include defined lead-in times. This will be to give all parties due notice and to enable practical transition arrangements to be planned and enacted.
IPReg will also draw on learning from other organisations’ approaches to managing the outputs and outcomes of similar reviews. This includes in terms of how they have done this collaboratively with key stakeholders and within realistic timeframes.
How can stakeholders contribute to the Review?
IPReg is seeking to secure stakeholder engagement across the life of the Education Review. We recognise that stakeholder input and feedback and exploring issues on a collaborative basis are vital for achieving confidence and trust in the process of the Review and in its future outputs and outcomes. We are progressing activity to build and maintain strong stakeholder links specifically on the Review to maximise opportunities for stakeholder involvement. We have formed an Expert Advisory Group (EAG) to input stakeholder perspectives on how we run the Review. Further information on the EAG’s role is available here.
Our Call for Evidence and Feedback runs from early February to the end of April 2026. This forms an important opportunity to tell us what you think about key themes within the Review and to submit evidence that you see as relevant to the Review’s progression. Information on the different ways you respond to the responding to the Call is available here.
We are also forming a time-limited Review Reference Group. We want the Group to be inclusive of all stakeholder groups and to provide us with insight and constructive challenge as the Review progresses. Reference Group members will have the opportunity to attend online webinars on key topics within the Review. If you are interested in joining the Reference Group, please email the Education Review mailbox with the subject line ‘Education Review Reference Group’: edreview@ipreg.org.uk.
Our regular newsletter provides updates on how you can engage with the Review. Click here to sign up to receive this.
What are the current timelines for the Review?
Our Call for Evidence and Feedback runs from early February to the end of April 2026. This forms an open, but structured, opportunity to tell us what you think about key themes within the Review and to submit evidence that you see as relevant to the Review. Information on responding to the Call is here.
We will analyse Call responses over the spring and early summer of 2026 to inform the development of the Review proposals in the late summer and autumn of 2026. We currently plan to run a public consultation on the proposals from late in 2026 into 2027. The Review proposals will then be refined, informed by consultation feedback.
Any changes arising from these stages of the Review will require Legal Services Board (LSB) approval before they can take effect. In-turn, the implementation of LSB-approved changes will be progressed in a staged way, with due lead-in time to their taking effect. We currently expect early implementation of any changes to begin in 2028/29.
These timelines are provisional. Appropriate timeframes for progressing each stage of the Review will be carefully monitored. This is to ensure that the pace of the Review provides sufficient time for stakeholder engagement, input and feedback. This includes as specific issues and themes meriting in-depth exploration emerge.
IPReg’s primary focus is on ensuring the Review maintains stakeholder trust and confidence and that its future outputs and outcomes are fit for purpose. It is not on progressing the Review to a fixed timeframe. Our focus will remain on ensuring a realistic timeframe for implementing any changes. This includes to ensure due notice can be given to all parties of any future changes, to take a collaborative approach, and to enable appropriate transition arrangements to be enacted.
Our IPReg Education Review Roadmap provides a summary of our current timeline.
What are the governance structures for the Review?
The Education Review is being overseen by the IPReg Board, with the Review forming a significant component of IPReg’s strategic objectives and current business plan; see Our Business Plan | The Intellectual Property Regulation Board. The Board’s Education Working Group (EWG) is providing more detailed input to IPReg’s assurance processes for the Review. The Review is being progressed as a project by a small project team within IPReg’s executive. The team reports on the Review to each meeting of the Board and EWG.
The Review Expert Advisory Group (EAG) is not part of IPReg governance processes, with its purpose to provide advisory input across different stakeholder perspectives. Reports on each EAG meeting are submitted to the Education Working Group. The EWG chair also attends EAG meetings.
Any proposed changes to IPReg requirements and processes arising from the Review will require approval from the Legal Services Board before they can be enacted.