Kroll case on discipline of a New York patent attorney
Further to an earlier post on IPBiz, the New York attorney discipline case is In the Matter of Michael I. Kroll, 2006 NY Slip Op 6287; 2006 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10324, and the decision does include the text:
OED determined that based upon a table published by the American
Intellectual Property Association, which tabulates information it collects from
patent practitioners regarding fees charged for various services, in 1999 the
average fee charged in the New York City area for preparation of the
application was $700, and that the respondent charged and collected from his client
Svevad $11,500 for the same service. In the course of its investigation, OED
identified 75 other clients who were charged similar fees by the respondent for
the same work.
If there is anyone reading IPBiz who believes that "in 1999 the
average fee charged in the New York City area for preparation of a patent
application was $700," please respond via comment to this post.
The decision also noted:
Rule 90.4 of the rules set forth by the Patent Cooperation Treaty
governing international patent applications requires the patent applicant to sign
a Power of Attorney form which provides authorization for the patent attorney
to act on the applicant's behalf with respect to his or her application. No
option is provided under the rules for the attorney of the patent applicant to
sign the Power of Attorney form instead of the client. Upon her receipt of her
file from the respondent, Lynn Svevad found that it contained a Power of Attorney
form signed with her name that was not her handwriting.
The respondent admitted that he signed Svevad's name to the Power of
Attorney, and that he had signed the names of other clients to the same
form in the past.
Separately, if anyone reading IPBiz believes that Eli Kintisch's discussion of continuation applications in the July 28 issue of Science was accurate, please feel free to comment on this post.
[IPBiz post 1942]
OED determined that based upon a table published by the American
Intellectual Property Association, which tabulates information it collects from
patent practitioners regarding fees charged for various services, in 1999 the
average fee charged in the New York City area for preparation of the
application was $700, and that the respondent charged and collected from his client
Svevad $11,500 for the same service. In the course of its investigation, OED
identified 75 other clients who were charged similar fees by the respondent for
the same work.
If there is anyone reading IPBiz who believes that "in 1999 the
average fee charged in the New York City area for preparation of a patent
application was $700," please respond via comment to this post.
The decision also noted:
Rule 90.4 of the rules set forth by the Patent Cooperation Treaty
governing international patent applications requires the patent applicant to sign
a Power of Attorney form which provides authorization for the patent attorney
to act on the applicant's behalf with respect to his or her application. No
option is provided under the rules for the attorney of the patent applicant to
sign the Power of Attorney form instead of the client. Upon her receipt of her
file from the respondent, Lynn Svevad found that it contained a Power of Attorney
form signed with her name that was not her handwriting.
The respondent admitted that he signed Svevad's name to the Power of
Attorney, and that he had signed the names of other clients to the same
form in the past.
Separately, if anyone reading IPBiz believes that Eli Kintisch's discussion of continuation applications in the July 28 issue of Science was accurate, please feel free to comment on this post.
[IPBiz post 1942]
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:09 AM
1 Comments:
Of Kintisch, patenthawk/blog has some strong commentary about Ravicher, the subject of Kintisch's piece in technologyreview. Some of the text:
This'll drive the Slashdot crowd wild. Earth to Ravicher, a news flash: there is no "software ecosystem." But if there was, it would only evolve past a slime pool if it didn't have patent protection. Otherwise, the world would be stuck with inferior quality software, like open-source Linux, because any worthwhile innovation would be readily imitated, thus removing economic incentive for software R&D. Think software piracy at the production level as THE way. Yes, open-source Linux is a cheap imitation of commercial operating systems, like Darth Vadar's Windows® (note the government regulation scheme - ®; otherwise, how many Windows would there be?).
Linux is cheap, in every sense of the word - you get what you pay for, and the market votes with its wallet. And so, as we see, the software marketplace is already determined by consumer choice. Thus, on the desktop, heavily patented, not-so-cheap Windows® continues to dominate, less heavily patented, certainly-not-cheap Mac has climbed back as its OS has improved wonderfully recently, and unpatented, quite cheap, open-source Linux languishes with a miniscule slice of the pie.
I still think the bigger news concerns the author (Kintisch) rather than the subject (Ravicher). We know the colors that Ravicher is flying, but Kintisch purports to be an objective writer of "news of the week" for Science. "News" in Science might better be described as "News Plant of the Week." The problems with the press release by Nature on the ACT embryonic stem cell are just one signpost on a road wherein the flagship journals are inserting op-eds into everything they touch.
Post a Comment
<< Home