Letter questions the credentials of Margaret J.A. Peterlin
On the theme of patent law credentials (see for example previous IPBiz post: Mark Lemley is not a patent attorney), Greedy IP has a post of a letter concerning the credentials of Margaret J.A. Peterlin [messge 56905]:
The Honorable John W. Dudas
Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Commissioner for Patents
The Honorable Carlos M. Gutierrez
Secretary of Commerce
U.S. Department of Commerce
John J. Sullivan
General Counsel
U.S. Department of Commerce
Dear Undersecretary Dudas:
Dear Secretary Gutierrez:
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
We the undersigned, as patent applicants and/or patent
practitioners, respectfully call your attention to the recent announcement by the UPSTO that Ms. Margaret J.A. Peterlin was sworn in as Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office in April 2007.
While we appreciate Ms. Peterlin's accomplishments, we are
nonetheless surprised that her biography does not include any apparent references to professional activity concerning patents or trademarks, in either a practical, corporate, academic, or publishing capacity. In particular, we respectfully seek your comments to our questions below concerning her appointment in light of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(1), which states in pertinent part that "[t]he Deputy Director shall be a citizen of the United States who has a professional background and experience in patent or trademark law."
Thus, we respectfully seek your comments on the following:
First, what agency rules and/or criteria did the USPTO use to
evaluate candidates for the position of Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office?
Second, how do the agency rules and/or criteria meet the
above-recited requirement of 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(1)?
Third, what aspects of Ms. Peterlin's career were deemed to satisfy the agency rules and/or criteria relevant to 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(1)?
While we intend no disrespect to you or Ms Peterlin by these
questions, we are deeply concerned about the increasing reports of dissatisfaction among the Examiners and staff of the USPTO and the noticeable deterioration in the Office's performance of its functions. For example, we refer you to the 2005 GAO report titled "Improvements Needed to Better Manage Patent Office Automation and Address Workforce Challenges". In view of this report, and others, we believe that the Office needs senior leadership and management that is very familiar with the Office's unique functions and responsibilities with regards to examining our patent and/or trademark applications. While we have not passed judgement on the ability of Ms. Peterlin to fulfill her role as Deputy Undersecretary, we are concerned by the lack of a professional background and experience in patent or trademark law in her dossier that the law requires.
We look forward to your response.
Most respectfully yours,
Gregory Aharonian, Inventor / Patent Applicant
San Francisco, CA
David Pressman, Patent Lawyer / Author
San Francisco, CA
Steve Morsa, Inventor / Patent Applicant
Thousand Oaks, CA
David Lentini, Patent Lawyer
San Francisco, CA
IPBiz notes that Pressman and Lentini truly are patent lawyers (David Pressman
21104; David Lentini 33944). IPBiz also notes that emails to both USAToday and author Maryclaire Dale about the assertion concerning Lemley remain unanswered, as do the emails to the San Diego Union Tribune and Terri Somers about the Thomson/Bongso business.
Pressman, the author of "Patent It Yourself," has over 40 years of experience in the patent profession -- as a patent examiner for the U.S. Patent Office, a patent attorney in corporate and private practice, a university instructor, and a columnist.
The above-noted letter raises issues concerning the patent quality problem which are rarely discussed in the academic literature. The issues would be deemed important by Deming just as much as "post grant opposition" would be deemed silly.
The Honorable John W. Dudas
Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Commissioner for Patents
The Honorable Carlos M. Gutierrez
Secretary of Commerce
U.S. Department of Commerce
John J. Sullivan
General Counsel
U.S. Department of Commerce
Dear Undersecretary Dudas:
Dear Secretary Gutierrez:
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
We the undersigned, as patent applicants and/or patent
practitioners, respectfully call your attention to the recent announcement by the UPSTO that Ms. Margaret J.A. Peterlin was sworn in as Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office in April 2007.
While we appreciate Ms. Peterlin's accomplishments, we are
nonetheless surprised that her biography does not include any apparent references to professional activity concerning patents or trademarks, in either a practical, corporate, academic, or publishing capacity. In particular, we respectfully seek your comments to our questions below concerning her appointment in light of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(1), which states in pertinent part that "[t]he Deputy Director shall be a citizen of the United States who has a professional background and experience in patent or trademark law."
Thus, we respectfully seek your comments on the following:
First, what agency rules and/or criteria did the USPTO use to
evaluate candidates for the position of Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office?
Second, how do the agency rules and/or criteria meet the
above-recited requirement of 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(1)?
Third, what aspects of Ms. Peterlin's career were deemed to satisfy the agency rules and/or criteria relevant to 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(1)?
While we intend no disrespect to you or Ms Peterlin by these
questions, we are deeply concerned about the increasing reports of dissatisfaction among the Examiners and staff of the USPTO and the noticeable deterioration in the Office's performance of its functions. For example, we refer you to the 2005 GAO report titled "Improvements Needed to Better Manage Patent Office Automation and Address Workforce Challenges". In view of this report, and others, we believe that the Office needs senior leadership and management that is very familiar with the Office's unique functions and responsibilities with regards to examining our patent and/or trademark applications. While we have not passed judgement on the ability of Ms. Peterlin to fulfill her role as Deputy Undersecretary, we are concerned by the lack of a professional background and experience in patent or trademark law in her dossier that the law requires.
We look forward to your response.
Most respectfully yours,
Gregory Aharonian, Inventor / Patent Applicant
San Francisco, CA
David Pressman, Patent Lawyer / Author
San Francisco, CA
Steve Morsa, Inventor / Patent Applicant
Thousand Oaks, CA
David Lentini, Patent Lawyer
San Francisco, CA
IPBiz notes that Pressman and Lentini truly are patent lawyers (David Pressman
21104; David Lentini 33944). IPBiz also notes that emails to both USAToday and author Maryclaire Dale about the assertion concerning Lemley remain unanswered, as do the emails to the San Diego Union Tribune and Terri Somers about the Thomson/Bongso business.
Pressman, the author of "Patent It Yourself," has over 40 years of experience in the patent profession -- as a patent examiner for the U.S. Patent Office, a patent attorney in corporate and private practice, a university instructor, and a columnist.
The above-noted letter raises issues concerning the patent quality problem which are rarely discussed in the academic literature. The issues would be deemed important by Deming just as much as "post grant opposition" would be deemed silly.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 3:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home