USPTO Director Andrei Iancu

On February 13, 2018, the USPTO issued 6,825 patents, including 6,152 utility patents — Each signed by the new USPTO Director Andrei Iancu (albeit via automated electronic process).


12 thoughts on “USPTO Director Andrei Iancu

  1. 3

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed that Administrator Scott Pruitt faced profanities and confrontations while traveling after controversy surrounding his use of first-class flights.

    The director of the EPA’s Office of Criminal Enforcement, Henry Barnet, told Politico that Pruitt was “approached in the airport numerous times” and had profanities “yelled at him” during his travels.

    Barnet told the publication that one specific incident saw a person approach Pruitt and shout “Scott Pruitt, you’re f—ing up the environment” while recording it on a cellphone.

    Oh, the poor widdle sn0wflake. He must be shielded from this uncivilized behavior.

    But remember, folks: “political correctness” is the worst thing evah! Our glibertarian tr 0lls said so, and they are so deep and serious and not totally hypocritical so it must be true.

    1. 3.1

      Your NON patent law rants – on this same thread – were already obliterated by the editors once.

      Why do you think that was?

      THINK a little.

      Put away the blind ad hominem and try, just try, to be relevant to the purpose of this blog.

      (hint: read – and understand – the byline)

  2. 2

    This is a very relevant post. Will Mr. Iancu stand by these grants as property rights or will he break his promise 85% of the time as the previous management did? These were the hollow words of a fraudulent promise for the past several years:

    The requirements of law have been complied with, and it has been determined that a patent on the invention shall be granted under the law. Therefore, this United States Patent grants to the person(s) having title to this patent the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States of America or importing the invention into the United States of America

    What do these words mean to the new Director?

    1. 2.1

      Electronic signatures aren’t Constitutional. You need to re-read the Case of Hodgetinkle from 1781, House of Lords.

      1. 2.1.1

        Presumably the property rights will exclude whale and sturgeon related patents because:
        The monarch’s right to royal fish was recognized by a statute enacted during the reign of Edward II.[3] According to Henry de Bracton, de balena vero sufficit … si rex habeat caput, et regina caudam: “the king owns the head of the whale, the queen owns the tail”

      2. 2.1.3

        Electronic signatures aren’t Constitutional.

        Strictly speaking, the sentence is meaningless, as it connotes a binary decision where. I such decision exists.

        Speaking of decisions, who makes the decision to write the words that appear on the face of the patent?

        Ned probably chuckles, but the treatment of the “process” category appears to short shrift that category and appear to make it a subset of the hard goods category.

        I “get” that one cannot technically import “a process,” but they could have worded the “keep-outs” a bit better.


          The words on the patent fail to include the statutory addition of “importing” which is part of the grant.

Comments are closed.