USPTO Announces Recipients of 2017 Patent Pro Bono Achievement Certificate

From USPTO: Alexandria, VA– The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced the recipients of the 2017 Patent Pro Bono Achievement Certificate in recognition of individuals who help make the Patent Pro Bono Program available to financially under-resourced inventors and small businesses.

In 2017 more than 85 volunteer patent practitioners reported 50 or more hours of patent pro bono service to a regional patent pro bono program. To acknowledge their contributions, USPTO provided certificates and listed their names and employers on the Patent Pro Bono Program website.

“I want to congratulate the recipients for their dedication, time, and commitment they’ve demonstrated in an effort to help spur innovation on behalf of under-resourced inventors and small businesses,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Andrei Iancu. “Their assistance is crucial not only to the success of our Patent Pro Bono Program, but the success of our nation toward inspiring innovation across the country, and ensures that everyone who has the desire is given the opportunity.”

The continued efforts of patent practitioners across the country have strengthened the success of the Patent Pro Bono Program since 2015. To date, more than 1,500 patent professionals have volunteered their availability, time, and resources to help make the Patent Pro Bono Program a success.

In 2018, USPTO will expand its recognition to include law firms and corporations in addition to individual patent practitioners. Those whose registered practitioners cumulatively contribute a minimum number of hours (based on firm size) to one or more participating regional patent pro bono programs may receive the 2018 Law Firm and Corporate Achievement Certificate.

2017 Winners Include:

Individuals Listed by Firm:

Alston & Bird LLP — Chris Lightner — Altanta , GA
Ballard Spahr LLP — Charley F. Brown — Altanta , GA
Ballard Spahr LLP — Jason  T.  Fletcher — Altanta , GA
Ballard Spahr LLP — Michele  A. Kliem — Altanta , GA
Ballard Spahr LLP — Galit Levitin — Altanta , GA
Ballard Spahr LLP — Scott D. Marty — Altanta , GA
Ballard Spahr LLP — Sandra Sciascia-Zirger — Altanta , GA
Ballard Spahr LLP — D. Brian Shortell — Altanta , GA
Ballard Spahr LLP — Sommer S. Zimmerman — Altanta , GA
Ballard Spahr LLP — Wendy Ann Choi — Atlanta, GA
Ballard Spahr LLP — John  Chionchio — Philadelphia, PA
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP — David Atkinson — Denver, CO
Carter, DeLuca, Farrell & Schmidt, LLP — Jason B. Scher — Melville, NY
Cozen  O’Connor — Kyle Vos Strache — Philadelphia, PA
CreatiVenture Law, LLC — Dennis JM Donahue III — St. Louis, MO
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP — Jonathan Tolstedt — Seattle, WA
Dentons US LLP — Roman Tsibulevskiy — Washington, DC
DLA Piper LLP — Tim Lohse — East Palo Alto, CA
DLA Piper LLP — Jeff Clark, MD — Boston, MA
Duane Morris — Joaquin Hernandez — Boca Raton, FL
Edam Law PLLC — Edmar M. Amaya, LL.M. — Miami, FL
Eversheds Sutherland LLP — Josh Aronson — Atlanta, GA
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP — Dan Schwartz — Chicago, IL
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP — Kathryn Warner — Denver, CO
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP — Steven Wiemer — Denver, CO
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP — Ryan Duebner — Denver, CO
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP — Bob O’Loughlin — Denver, CO
Fleit, Gibbons, Gutman, Bongini & Bianco, PL — Gary S. Winer — Coral Gables, FL
Foley & Lardner — Joseph F. Janas — Chicago, IL
Foley & Lardner — Roger  Rozanski — Chicago, IL
Foley & Lardner — Charles Carter — Milwaukee, WI
Foley & Lardner — John  Lazarus — Milwaukee, WI
Foley & Lardner — Lisamarie  Collins — Milwaukee, WI
Holland & Hart — Jennifer Junkin — Salt Lake City, UT
Holland & Hart — Dick Schulze — Reno, NV
Holzer Patel Drennan — Rachel Carnaggio — Denver, CO
Husch Blackwell — Marriam Lin — St. Louis, MO
Interdigital Holdings, Inc.   — John B. Gillick, Jr. — Wilmington, DE
Interdigital Holdings, Inc.   — Damian C. Hamme — Wilmington, DE
IP Services — John  Tolomei — Palatine, IL
Jin and Vidhani Consultancy LLP — Dr. Dinesh Vidhani — Tallahassee, FL
Jin and Vidhani Consultancy LLP — Dr. Yonghao Jin — Tallahassee, FL
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP — Stephen Dew — Altanta , GA
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP — Brett Mellor — Denver, CO
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP — Torrey Spink — Denver, CO
Law Office of Nora M. Tocups — Nora M. Tocups — Decatur, GA
Lewis Rice — Kirk A. Damman — St. Louis, MO
Lowenstein Sandler LLP — Ben Kimes — Palo Alto, CA
Lowenstein Sandler LLP — Sam Noel — Centerville, UT
Lowenstein Sandler LLP — Steven Tam — Palo Alto, CA
Lowenstein Sandler LLP — Cicero Brabham — Roseland, NJ
Lowenstein Sandler LLP — Joseph Jones — Roseland, NJ
Lowenstein Sandler LLP — Jonathan Wolfsberger — Palo Alto, CA
Lowenstein Sandler LLP — Kevin Grange — Palo Alto, CA
Lowenstein Sandler LLP — Kevin O. Grange — Centerville, UT
Lowenstein Sandler LLP — Sam Noel — Centerville, UT
Lowenstein Sandler LLP — Cicero Brabham — Roseland, NJ
MBCB Attorneys — Jonathan Yates — Bloomington, IN
McDonald Hopkins LLC — Mark C. Guinto — Cleveland, OH
McDonell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff — Emily Miao — Chicago, IL
Medtronic — Tiffany Parcher — Boulder, CO
Mohr IP Law — Devin  Miller — Salt Lake City, UT
Neal Gerber Eisenberg — Michael Harlin — Chicago, IL
Patterson + Sheridan LLP — Matthew Seeley — Houston, TX
Perkins Coie LLP — Kevin John Patariu — San Diego, CA
Pham IP Group — Frank Pham — Houston, TX
Poly-Med, Inc — Mary Anthony Merchant, JD, PhD — Atlanta, GA
Quarles & Brady — Justin DeAngelis — Chicago, IL
Quarles & Brady — Erin Fox — Chicago, IL
Rabicoff Law — Kenneth Matuszewski — Chicago, IL
Rosenbaum IP — Ben Rotman — Northbrook, IL
Schwegman Lundberg Woessner — Michael R. Mischnick — Minneapolis, MN
Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP — Thomas  Wiseman — Washington, DC
Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP — Greg  Kirsch — Altanta , GA
Southeaster IP Consulting LLP — John R. Sweet — Altanta , GA
Stinson Leonard Street, LLP — Judy Carlson — Kansas City, MO
Stinson Leonard Street, LLP — David Kim — Kansas City, MO
The Richards Law Firm LLC — William B. Richards — New Albany, OH
Thomas Hostermeyer — Richard T. Timmer — Atlanta, GA
Tom F. Pruitt PLLC, Retired — Tom Pruitt — Nacogdoches, TX
Vedder Price — Sudip Mitra — Chicago, IL
Vitaley, Vickrey, Niro & Gasey LLP — Oliver Yang — Chicago, IL
WilmerHale — Ben Fernandez — Denver, CO
Womble Bond Dickinson LLP — Dan Ovanezian — Palo Alto, CA
Womble Bond Dickinson LLP — Bill  Jacobs — Palo Alto, CA

4 thoughts on “USPTO Announces Recipients of 2017 Patent Pro Bono Achievement Certificate

  1. 1

    To randomguy in other thread.

    >>Intermediated settlement is an abstract idea because it is a fundamental building block of the modern economy.

    >> Here is the key Alice quote:

    “Like the risk hedging in Bilski, the concept of intermediated settlement is “ ‘a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce,’ ” ibid., and the use of a third-party intermediary (or “clearing house”) is a building block of the modern economy. Thus, intermediated settlement, like hedging, is an “abstract idea” beyond §101’s scope. Pp. 7–
    10. ”

    What is pretty clear from that is that “long prevalent” is a synonym for “well known.”

    I think it is pretty clear from that key quote about that the SCOTUS is equating whether something is well known with whether it is abstract. Well known is also used three times in the opinion.

    Your thoughts on this are interesting to read. You think I am unfocused because I am not buying into the witch language. The way to think about the claims in Alice or any other claim is with structure. You have to look at what structure is present and analyze the claim from there. You don’t abstract away to a gist and then fabricate an abstract idea and they push it all into the abstract idea to invalidate the claim. The Alice two step process is absurd to any thinking person. The structure floats in and out of the gist created by the fabricated abstract idea.

    Again, think in terms of structure. And, again, well known should have nothing to do with abstract and didn’t before Alice. Now abstract means was it well-known and fundamental? Yes, then abstract idea.

    Anyway, I appreciate your engagement in this and I hope you will think about what I said. Think in terms of the structure. I try to go back to information theory and imagine the number of bits of information it would take to represent the claims. Why Alice is absurd is that it pulls bits of the representation into the directed abstract idea with no rules.

    1. 1.1

      The reality is that there is no sense to the jurisprudence on abstract idea.

      Before Alice, this is what I understood an abstract idea to be. And actually I am pretty sure that J. Rader came up with this example many years before Alice. An abstract idea is something like build the same machine in terms of functionality with fewer parts.

      That is an abstract idea.

    2. 1.2

      Plus, just saying that is a fundamental or whatever is another way of saying that it is well-known.

      So, again–what does something being well-known or a fundamental building block have to be with abstract? Those have to do with 102/103.

      Again–find some definition of abstract before Alice (and the other recent 101 SCOTUS cases) that has as part of the definition well-known or fundamental building block.

      What abstract is about is whether there is some way to implement it. That is the real definition of abstract. What the SCOTUS did was make up a new meaning and then attached it to the word abstract as a way to provide a SJ way to invalidate claims.

      1. 1.2.1

        And I predicted years before that they would find some way to use 101 so that SJ could invalidate all the claims. And they did. Alice is total nonsense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 Notify me of followup comments via e-mail.

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture