The AIPLA has expressed concern over the definition of patent assertion entities… arguing it's overly inclusive and basically saying that bad PAEs are those who abuse infringement litigation… see posts below re why 285 already deals with this.
Probably few posts for a while. Happy Holidays to all.
The newest Vacancies Act actually flips that Prof. Hricik, and states that the Act supercedes section 3.
Perhaps someone with a contact in the GAO (the oversight body on this) can make an inquiry…?
I think you need to take a look at the actual words used by Rea in her letter… (and keep in mind exactly which sticks in the bundle of power were delegated and which could not be – Prof. Duffy is simply incorrect that ALL powers are included).
There is quite a bit of nuance to be appreciated here. As Prof. Duffy states, the transition of power is a critical foundation of law, and for that reason, the nuances should be understood and not glossed over.
This is NOT merely a point as to whether the Secretary of Commerce has the power of all of the functions of the Patent Office (which your link below supports). The chain of passing power is in fact controlled by the later Vacancies Act, and your point about something being overridden by section 3 is a bit off. Otherwise, Rea would not have had to bother with the particular words that she chose.
Do you have a link to the legislative history of the Vacancies Act? That Act came after the 1952 Act.
Thanks for the links, and will comment after I digest them, but the cross link to the michelle-lee thread does not work (it appears that you included the punctuation at the end into the link – links at the end of sentences must be given a space before the punctuation).
Yes, indeed the leg history supports his view, at least to the extent that it makes clear that the Vacancies Act is overridden by section 3. I can’t figure out how to point to the precise place but look for the discussion of section 3:
link to ipmall.info
By the way, read the discussion of 101 and tell me that it’s not beyond clear that only 102 and 103 are conditions… but I digress…
Wow – I don’t often agree with the Duffster, but that post pretty much nails it. (I’d shorten the hell out of the post but…). The key legal and factual point is here:
In sum, the law governing inter-executive delegation is very clear, and the PTO Director’s function of nominating a Deputy Director is fully delegable to any other officer in the PTO. According to the PTO’s previous public statements, all of the functions of the PTO Director had been delegated to the Commissioner of Patents, Peggy Focarino, and Commissioner Focarino nominated Michelle Lee. See link to patentlyo.com.”
(I also wonder if the leg history leans this way? I may go look after… one more cup of coffee.)
After your coffee, can you post more as to why Hal is wrong? You might wander over to the main blog and wade through a couple of the threads there (you will need your boots as the likes of Malcolm Mooney and 6 have deposited their usual style of posts already).
Note to self: have more coffee before trying to post.
Anon,
Just seeing this. From my understanding and read of the statutes, and work on administrative law/delegation doctrine in writing one of my books, Mr. Wegner’s very clearly wrong.
Happy holidays, Prof Hricik! Looking forward to more interesting/enlightening/entertaining blog posts on ethical and patent issues in 2014!
OT, but I am curious as to your view on any ethical implications to the lawyers/top brass of the Executive Branch (or work product, that is, granted patents) related to the fiasco of the seemingly illegal appointment of M. Lee (violations of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 3345 et seq.)
An update sent by email today is not yet available at link to laipla.net
Comments are closed.