USPTO Fees are changing at the end of the month. PCT Fees are changing on October 1, 2020; US National fees are changing on October 2, 2020. In general, the fees are going up, not down.  Beat the fees – file by September 30, 2020.

118 thoughts on “USPTO Fees

  1. 4

    >>US National fees are changing on October 2, 2020. In general, the fees are going up, not down. Beat the fees – file by September 30, 2020.<<

    If the fees are changing on October 2, 2020, shouldn't it be "Beat the fees — file by October 2, 2020"?

    1. 3.1

      Well, in all fairness Randall, the engagement here only has two (now three with yours) sub-threads, and the major one is somewhat of a big deal.

    2. 3.2

      Happy to oblige: not only is it good that fees are going up, but they probably should be higher. The USPTO should aim to set fees at the revenue-maximizing point, and then plough the extra revenues into hiring more examiners so that each application can receive more hours of search and examination time. The higher fees will have the added benefit of discouraging some of the lower quality applications from even being filed in the first place, thus raising the overall quality of both applications and grants.

  2. 2

    OT, but it is good news for patent law that Ginsburg will be replaced. She understood nothing about technology, science, or business and yet believed that she should create the rules for patents.

    It is great news for patents that she will no longer be able to shape patent law.

    1. 2.1

      But it is bad news for the country. Nomatter the elections outcome, it would’ve been far better for Ginsberg to have died January 21st.

      1. 2.1.1

        Let’s not jump the gun there Ben and presume (A SSume?) that Republicans will reverse their Obama-era position.


          I wasn’t presuming any outcome. I think the situation itself is bad news.

          The least divisive scenario I can imagine is where the current senate declines to consider a nomination during the current term, and in the next term the Senate majority’s party matches the president’s party. And even in that case the loosing side is likely to have a substantial fraction who are bitter about what happened. There would’ve been less of those feelings if she had died March 2021. And there are a few dozen ways it could be worse than that best case scenario!

          Though if you want to talk about actual outcomes, it would not be a groundless assumption to think that the nomination will be handled during the current presidential term.


          “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

          link to

          Of course, McConnell would not characterize this as a reversal of his previous position.


            Yes we should wait until after the election.

            It just isn’t right to be nominating and appointing a justice as Trump intends particularly as the Rs refused to consider Obama’s nomination.

            Frankly, I past tired of the Rs and the Ds.


              I don’t think he should wait. The sooner the better. It would be better for the country if it were NOT a campaign issue. And I could give 2 cents about flipping Roe and Casey.


                Well, as much as I wanted Ben to not be jumping the gun, his link and concurrent comments make it such that not only was he not jumping the gun, but that Trump is welcoming this AS an election issue.

                This puts a substantive BITE into the political issues that ‘Basement Joe’ has been hiding from, and switches the discussion from personal foibles to longer term actual political stances.

                I don’t see how this could be anything other than a campaign issue — and an important one at that.


            thanks for the link, Ben.

            There is some pretty hefty spin there:

            In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.

            By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise.

            President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.

            Note that he provides an actual contrasting counter point to what happened in 2106.

            Do you think that that counter point is going to be recognized?


              Compellingly persuasive, as always. We’re still waiting for your persuasive response to

              July 16, 2020 at 7:59 pm in 65 thoughts on ““The technology involved in this appeal is simple” and Allows Common Sense to Substitute for Elements Not in the Prior Art”

              Oops. You missed one.


                Plus (as usual), your ACME plans are not working here, as it is unclear exactly what you feel should be “compellingly persuasive” about a post that thanks another for a link and asks a question about the content in that link.

                Your own obsess10n is on display here Shifty. Do you want to remind the readers just what the results of that ‘crawl’ I mention at were?


                … and I have to chuckle at you and your “We’re still waiting

                Who exactly is this “we”…?

                As of today, the threads as near in time as August 6 are closed to comments. Whoever this “we” is (in your mind), you are going to wait for a very long time.

                You don’t get how this whole blogging thing works, do you?

                1. That same question applies to you (as does your ‘favorite’ meme/tell of Ding Ding Ding).

                  But you don’t seem very comfortable ever actually addressing questions put to you, my pal Shifty.

                  It is, of course, easy to see why.

                2. Randall,

                  You are of course welcome to your feelings and opinions.

                  But if you want to speak in a vacuum and complete absence of past dialogues, you are also welcome to be wrong in the basis for those feelings and opinions.

                3. Y

                  Is that ALL that you have? – the “I use my real name” canard?


                  Maybe inform yourself as to the long and hallowed tradition of anonymous and pseudonymous use.

                4. Anon? From what we have learned thus far, anon does not use his real name because he is not a U.S. attorney but hopes to be one someday. He still has trouble with the U.S. idioms. But he takes pride in being an Internet tough guy who can strut while sitting down. He has nothing of substance to add to any conversation and knows that everybody knows it. He is usually ignored. But he has a multitude of tells when he has nothing of substance to say. And now he will come with the tells.

                5. The best “tell” from my Shifty friend is Shifty’s unwillingness to apply his own analysis to his own posts and answer simple questions put to him.

                  Hey Shifty, why don’t you answer our new sensitive friend Randall’s concern with “use your real name” and explain why YOU do not use your real name?

                6. Oh. Did we tell you Snowflake tries to emulate the feckless U.S. lawyer thing about having the “last shot,” regardless of how devoid of substance? He seems to think it will get him into a real U.S. law school. Yes, we know, sad.

                  And he will not be able to help it with the tells. Yes, we know, sad.

                  Most just ignore him.

                7. My pal Shifty,

                  The anvil strikes you in the head again, as not only do you not take up the question put to you, you make a noise that you personally cannot follow through on.

                  As I have already noted (below at, you have an 0bsess10n and an inability to ign0re me.

                  As to the now extremely stale ‘tells’ meme of yours, what do YOUR tells tell of you?

                  Oh, that’s right, you ‘don’t do’ answers, do you?

                  As to ‘last shot,’ I have previously corrected you on this ‘tell/meme’ of yours: it is not merely ‘last shot,’ but is instead ‘last AND BEST shot.’

                  You should try paying attention to more than merely “oh, anon has posted.”

                  Will you actually be helping our new sensitive friend with his quandary of ‘posting with a real name?’

                8. What is your own tell/meme telling of you?

                  It is telling that you appear unable to answer the points put to you, and unwilling to help our new fragile friend understand postings done without using one’s real name.

                  Instead, you provide the same dross that you have always provided.

                  How has that worked out for you?

                  (are you still trying to pretend that your posts on this thread are actually TO Randall, whether then replies TO me? Are you unable to even acknowledge your 0bsess10n with me?)

                  Those, of course, are rhetorical questions, as we both know the answers, as has been confirmed by the hard data of the past crawl of the blog.

                9. Yet another anvil to your noggin as neither is ‘nym’ inscrutable, nor am I confused.

                  You yourself are merely confused in the regards that your lack of understanding does not set the bar as to blog discussions.

                  Clearly (given the immediate context), ‘nym’ theft has to do with the evidently false misappropriation of my pseudonym.

                  That my particular pseudonym happens to reflect anonymity is but a clever design choice.

                  And just as clearly, as many other things do, this just sails over your head.

                  But you should realize that your projections directly stemming from your own limitations simply do not set the standard for any type of dialogue on these boards.

                  You just don’t grasp how this blogging thing works, do you?

                  (That’s a rhetorical question, by the way — you don’t have to answer that one, and I would prefer that you at least attempt to answer the many other questions already put to you)

                10. I see that your nightly beddi-bedtime post has gone on a familiar tangent.

                  How has that ever worked out for you?

                  Wouldn’t you rather help out our new fragile friend?

                11. Ding Ding Ding!!! Something about a coyote.

                  You just won me 20 bucks!!! The boy just can’t help it with the tells !!!!

                12. … and by the way, I get five bucks for every time that I ask you a question and you fail to give an on point answer.

                  I am WAY ahead of you.

                  Why are you not helpful out our new fragile friend to understand anonymous and pseudonymous posting in contrast to the “I Use My Real Name” view that he has?

                  (and yes, that question is another chance for me to get five MORE bucks)

                13. Two more questions (and potentially ten more bucks for me today):

                  Should I commission a supplementary crawl of the comments to this blog?

                  What kind of stats do you think would come of evaluating the difference between you and I when it comes to providing on point answers to questions asked?

                14. It is unclear what you mean by “attempts.”

                  These are questions which have just earned me five bucks a pop.

                  Are you going to try to actually be on point and answer the questions put to you?

                15. By the way, the different character showing up (along with the delay of actually processing your post) indicates that you may have “f@tfingered” your email entry.

                  Perhaps you should not be in such a hurry to post your nonsense.

                16. Ah, your old fall back to the tell/meme of you assuming to speak for others while also projecting your own lack of understanding as if I were the one fumbling about, when it is you that is doing so….

                  What does this tell about you?

                  Why are you not answering questions put directly to you?

                  Why are you not helping our new sensitive friend understand posting on a blog with pseudonymous and anonymous names rather than real names?

                  Are you tired yet of my making five bucks a pop at questions that you do not provide on point answers to?

                17. Who exactly is this “they?”
                  Who exactly is this “we?”

                  What does this “tell” of yours to post in such a manner tell about you?

                  Do you enjoy earning me five bucks a pop with your ‘nighty-night’ inanities?

                18. Part I: my friend and the put it to a third party, and I has been decided that your answer of “yes” with nothing more, does earn my five bucks. Your answers must be both substantive and cogent to count.

                  Part II: complete non-sequiturs (as in your “Subway” comment) earn me ten bucks a pop. They show that you are flailing in the exchange.

                19. Let’s correct that first paragraph and autocorrect running rampant…

                  Part I: my friend and I put it to a third party, and it has been decided that your answer of “yes” with nothing more, does earn me five bucks. Your answers must be both substantive and cogent to count.

                20. What does “inscrutable” mean to you?

                  Why would you think it applies here?

                  Do you realize that you are projecting your own lack of understanding as if your lack is someone else’s problem?


                21. Snowflake tries the inscrutable thang. When that doesn’t work out for him he falls back on the old reliable clueless act. act(?).

                22. … the tell/meme of your posting completely unrelated material merely to have a post in the back and forth of our dialogues earns me 20 bucks a pop (bumped up from 10, given that the thread has moved to page 2, and it shows that you are spending more effort being more meaningless).

                  Keep that money flow to me going, my pal!

                23. Another twenty – thank you.

                  In all of your obsessive posts to me, has this tactic of yours ever worked for you?


                  Hint: the two letter answer starts with “n” and ends with “o.”

                24. Off the top of my head, the time we demonstrated that your understanding of the law of the doctrine of equivalents was based on an error in Wikipedia. And the time we queried you to the extent that your own designated expert concluded that you are an incredibly sloppy reader, writer, and thinker. And the time you became so befuddled you called a statement of yours, read back to you verbatim, an “outright lie.” We’ll check the notes for a few other examples.

                25. If you had meant “off with my head,” I would have probably agreed with you.

                  For all else in your last comment, you are in clear error.

                  You are quite mistaken in what you think to be your ‘victories.’ You celebrate the wrong things, my pal Shifty.

                  Off the top of my head, the time we demonstrated that your understanding of the law of the doctrine of equivalents was based on an error in Wikipedia.

                  This affected ‘we’ of yours as a tell/meme… What does that tell about you?

                  Also, you (singular or plural) never demonstrated any such error of understanding, because I have never provide any such error.

                  You are mistaking your OWN error when it comes to Wikipedia, because this “DOE” reference was your own attempt at covering up when I lambasted you on the Wikipedia use that I DID use in regards to the Nobel Prize – and to which I provided a confirming direct link substantiating the point that I used from Wikipedia.

                  Like a puppy who shat in the wrong area, your nose was rubbed in your own feces. All you did was make up entirely this notion of DOE and Wikipedia and falsely accused me of this nebulous thing in an attempt to put salve on your wounds.

                  Just more salt for you instead of salve.

                  And the time we queried you to the extent that your own designated expert concluded that you are an incredibly sloppy reader, writer, and thinker.

                  LOL – you want to claim that as some type of victory? Too funny. My expert ON A TOPIC is an expert on a topic – he is most definitely NOT an expert on battling on a blog, and he carries a sore spot because I actually showed him up on a different topic that he wanted to hold himself out as an expert on – but is not (the notion that criminal law was the only place that Void for Vagueness has application). I showed that he was expressly wrong and rubbed his nose in it. After that, he simply held a grudge. That grudge makes him no less the expert for the item that I give him credit for, but just because I give him credit in one area, his feelings and opinions on other things do NOT escalate somehow up to ‘expert’ status.

                  That you somehow think this to be AND want to claim this as one of your victories only confirms my point that you are clueless as to how this blogging thing works. You make my point for me.

                  More salt for you.

                  And the time you became so befuddled you called a statement of yours, read back to you verbatim, an “outright
                  ” (interesting artifact of editorial control – a direct cut and paste still nabs a George Carlin filter for me)

                  again, never happened. You tried to claim this and I directly refuted your games as I indicated the context of the comments and that your own attempts at double spin were the outright lie (not my own comments).

                  Three swings – three strikes.

                  That ‘plural’ you need to get better notes.

                26. Nobody is fooled, Snowflake. We can smell the flop sweat when you panic and pound the table and make stuff up.

                27. You are projecting again.

                  Nothing made up at all in my response.

                  Everything I said is perfectly accurate.

                  So what’s your next tell/meme?

                28. Coming from perhaps the least self-aware (and yet continues to refer to himself in the plural) person to ever post on this blog, your question rises to the heights of hypocrisy and attempted projection of your own inadequacies.

                  It’s an odd combination with your evidenced obsess10n with me.

                  By the way, you have already ployed this “self-awareness” meme/tell.

                  When I asked ‘next,’ I was hoping for at least something different.

                29. I saw though your “only ask.”

                  Your attempted snide comment was a

                  Another train wreck for you.

                  What’s your next one?

                30. Why in the world would you say that?

                  You do know what “see through” means, right?

                  Here’s a hint:

                  Your game

                31. Your insistence on a use of ANY particular word as a ‘tell’ is ITSELF a tell.

                  This has been noted many times now, and put to you to reconcile your own repeated use of what is generally recognized as a meme with how YOU would want to label memes as tells – even as your yourself employ a limited number over and over and over.

                  By the way, I thought you would be interested, and my pocket book thanks you, as your insistence on saying that I cannot help myself has qualified as an item earning me 20 bucks a pop (a mindless assertion by you that does not advance any dialogue and appears to be nothing more than filler as part of your attempt to have the last word).

                  Stop for a second, my pal Shifty, and ask yourself, has this tactic of yours ever done anything for you?

                  Shall we do a crawl of this and the Submission By Third Parties threads to verify my statements about your posting tendencies?

                  What do you think would be the “obsess10n” factor on these two threads?

                  You pitch a number of memes that are nothing more than projections of your own tendencies, and a crawl and analysis can easily show this. What would you say to such an analysis?

                32. “20 bucks a pop”

                  So you say you do not get paid for a post, but you get paid “20 bucks a pop” when somebody responds to your nonsense. In your mind, how is it that you’re not a paid shill?

                33. It’s odd that you would insert this comment deep into this older thread, especially as I have already answered your question here at: link to

                  To wit, YOUR lack of understanding of what context means, and what shill means has NOTHING to do with ‘my mind.’

                  That 20 bucks a pop is NOT ‘when someone responds to me,’ as it is when YOU respond in an asinine manner, as described.

                  It is YOUR action that generates the payout, and it has NOTHING to do directly with the subject matter that I have posted upon.

                  “Context” is something that you really should learn how to grasp.

                  Do you ‘get’ that it is YOUR actions that generate this cash flow for me?

                  “Shill” is something that you should understand – especially when you want to use that word in an attempted denigration of another.

                  Do you understand what the term ‘shill’ means?

                  My earning cash for your inanity and obsess10n over me does not fall to the meaning of ‘paid shill.’

      2. 2.1.2

        I actually agree with this that the replacement should be made after the election.

        Trump would be doing the country a great service to return us to some kind of ethical non-partisan conduct.


          bros i miss mm like so much.

          He would be here to tell us about the evil republikkkans and their takeover and all and we could all have a jolly good lol and all that.


                Lol – as we have bantered, it is far more likely that Ben is merely the same Ben that had ‘upvoted’ nearly everything that Malcolm ever posted in the era of the then attempt of “Let’s all just get along” DISQUS posting days (which featured not only the ‘vote’ capability, but also featured the ‘let’s see all the posts by this person’ capability. Interestingly enough, it was only after I had made note of – and use of – this feature that Malcolm (and Malcolm followers) opted for the ‘ultra high security mode’ that blocked that feature.


                I had noted Malcolm’s declining presence earlier this year (he had a several week stint of no posts in January), and then I commissioned a ‘crawl’ of the comments across all active threads (to show a different point to my pal with the shifting historical pseudonyms) that revealed that Malcolm had stopped posting.

    2. 2.2

      [I]t is good news for patent law that Ginsburg will be replaced.

      It is too early to conclude as much, because her replacement is only a good thing for patent law if she is replaced by someone better. In that respect, consider the following list (in each entry, the case is categorized as a ruling for (“P”) or against (“A”) the IP rights-holder; the first letter represents how the Court ruled, and the second how Justice Ginsburg ruler; unanimous holdings are noted with a “U”):

      Festo: P,P,U
      KSR: A,A,U
      Bilski: A,A
      Golan v. Holder: P,P,U
      Mayo: A,A,U
      Bowman: P,P,U
      Myriad: A,A,U
      Alice: A,A
      Cuozzo: A,A
      Oil States: A,A
      SAS: A,P

      This list is—obviously—not comprehensive, but I believe that it is sufficiently representative. Anyone who thinks that the conclusions that I am about to draw would be materially falsified in view of a more comprehensive list is free to spend their own free time assembling such a list. I notice three conclusions here.

      First, the majority of SCOTUS IP decisions (6 of 11) are unanimous, indicating that there is actually not much of a divergence of views about IP law on the Court. Remember too that the majority of the justices have been Republican appointees during the whole of Justice Ginsburg’s tenure, but nothing about the IP decisions really reflects a partisan split.

      Second, the overwhelming majority (8 of 11) of SCOTUS IP decisions have been against the IP rights-holder. In other words, that bipartisan consensus of which I just remarked is a bipartisan anti-IP consensus.

      Third, Justice Ginsburg actually voted for the rights-holder slightly more often (4 of 11) than the Court as a whole (3 of 11). It is, in other words, easily possible to imagine that her appointed successor will actually be more hostile to patents that she was.

      1. 2.2.1

        Interesting, but the meaningful cases that regard 101 are where Ginsburg was solidly with Stevens and tried to remove patent eligibility from all information processing machines. The reasoning was right from the medieval period. Etc.

        When it counted she was against IP rights. There are a few marginal cases where other interests overruled her disdain for patents, but Ginsburg was about as anti-patent as they get and solidly in the camp with Stevens.

        Additionally, she tried to be an idea leader with her attempt to remove all patents that had anything to do with human behavior which is infamously for completely denying the reality of innovation and the fact that we live in the information age.

        There was little to no hope of a person of such limited ability in science to ever grasp patent law.


          At the time that Justice Ginsburg joined the Court, none of her colleagues had a science background. At the time that she left the Court, none of her colleagues had a science background. During the whole of her tenure, none of her colleagues had a science background. I will make bold now to predict that her replacement will not have a science background.

          I agree that it is appalling that we leave decisions about patent law to a group of nine science illiterates, but that problem did not begin with Justice Ginsburg and it will not end with her departure. I very much doubt that her replacement will make a bit of difference to the outcome in IP cases, precisely because no president yet has taken “science background?” into account when choosing Supreme Court nominees.

          Ideally Congress would simply remove patent cases from SCOTUS review. Until and unless that happens, however, I think we must resign ourselves to more bad SCOTUS outcomes. Nothing about the current situation is uniquely attributable to Justice Ginsburg.


            I disagree. The current situation is directly tied to Ginsburg and Stevens.

            Those were the two most voraciously anti-patent pair on the Scotus.

            And being ignorant of science is not the entire problem. It is being ignorant of science and not understanding your limitations.

            And, frankly, your comments are surreal. J. Ginsburg was without question the most anti-patent person on the Scotus. She took over Stevens role of being a judicial activist to try and end patents for huge areas of technology. One need only read what she wrote about patents to know this.


                If you read Bilski both the CAFC en banc opinion and the Scotus opinion, then you can see the positions of all the judges.

                Not much has changed and this was the last opinion where they exposed their views on patents. Alice was an act of legislation.

                1. So your contention is that by reading “ CAFC en banc opinion and the Scotus opinion”—none of which were written by, or even mentioned, Justice Ginsburg—one can infer that “Ginsburg… tried to be an idea leader with her attempt to remove all patents that had anything to do with human behavior…”? How does that make any sense? How does one attempt to be a “thought leader” without authoring a single article or opinion on a topic?

                2. Seems to be out of posts.

                  But I do not have time to dig through materials to figure out where I built my opinion of Ginsburg. I remember listening to her in oral arguments and I remember an interview she gave. She back Stevens. I think there are some other sources too.

                  Yes now that I think of it, I am sure the oral proceedings for Bilski I think is where she reveals herself.

                3. Night Writer,

                  See also – and yes, she was one of the Stevens backers that would have violated separation of powers with a direct overwrote of the legislative words of the patent act — very much a “Ends justify the Means” approach.


              Ginsburg did not author a single opinion in any of the §101 cases. What writings do you mean?


                Again read the oral arguments and notice that she was aligned with Stevens, who was the ultimate anti-patent justice.

                1. Again, Greg does not care about actual counter points.

                  Here, all that he wanted to do was state that RBG did not directly pen the anti-patent positions (that she fully endorsed – as you clarify).

                  Greg’s version of “dialogue” on display.


          [T]he meaningful cases that regard 101 are where Ginsburg was solidly with Stevens…

          Justice Ginsburg just really was not as singular or unique as you are trying to make out—along this dimension of patent law or any other dimension. Not a single justice voted to hold any of the claims in Bilski, Mayo, Myriad, or Alice. I am with you in thinking that these outcomes were all appalling and scientifically illiterate, but in no instance was Justice Ginsburg’s (or Stevens’) point of view unique. The ineligibility of the claims in these cases was a matter of unanimous agreement on the Court.


            While Justice Ginsburg may not be able to be singled out, the same certainly can NOT be said of Justice Stevens.

            His majority opinion – turned ‘concurrence’ (but was really a dissent) in what was supposed to have been his “bookend” opinion (his last on the bench) clearly contradicts your assertions here Greg.

            And yes, I have inside information that is verified by the writing style that Justice Steven’s opinion would have been the holding – had he NOT lost a majority position in that case.

            As history played out though, Justice Stevens DID lose his majority, and his opinion was relegated to being a dissent dressed as a mere concurrence.

            And afterwards, as it has been well noted in comments here on this blog, the whole “four became three” Justices that deeply aligned with Stevens DID feature Ginsburg (as well as Breyer and Steven’s protégé Sotomayor).

            You obfuscate these point with other views, such as opinions with which the other Justices signed along with, but those are NOT the focal point of the battle on the bench as to the Justices being pro or anti patent.

            Maybe you should pay attention not only to me, but to the likes of Prof. Lemley (and take the opposite of that well-known anti-patentist) and Prof. Mossof (who far more understands the dynamics of innovation).


              20 bucks a pop”

              So you say you do not get paid for a post, but you get paid “20 bucks a pop” when somebody responds to your nonsense. In your mind, how is it that you’re not a paid shill?

              And why is it that most just ignore your nonsense (as if you do not exist?)


                Yet again Shifty, not just anyone, and not just any response.

                Please pay attention before you post the same nonsense that has already been addressed.


                Also, you do not seem to be getting what a paid shill is.

                Maybe look up the meaning of the words that you are trying to use as a denigration…


                And lastly, I have already answered your assertion, on why my foes lack stamina to keep up with me in conversations: they do not have answers to the points that I present.

                Much like you do not. But unlike others, YOU are obsessed with me. Do you have a single post in the last six weeks that was not to or about me?

                A single one?

                (Hint: the answer has two letters, the first letter is “n” and the second letter is “o”)

    3. 2.3

      I agreed and it isn’t political. Thomas is just as bad and needs to be replaced. He’s equally as clueless about patents and technology as RBG was.

    4. 2.4

      Justice Thomas: “She was a superb judge who gave her best and exacted the best from each of us, whether in agreement or disagreement.”

      Note how Greg “I Use My Real Name” DeLassus epitomizes the opposite in that anyone disagreeing with him (and getting the better of him) is simply ‘ghosted.’

  3. 1

    Dear Dennis:
    I take issue with your observation as to additional concerns with Patent Agents handling assignment issues. There are two components to handling assignment issues. One is the preparation of the high percentage of routine assignment documents for filing with the PTO, wherein inventors or legal entities assign their rights to another party. Patent Agents can prepare those documents and file them with the PTO. In very rare situations, Assignments include non-routine documents that are prepared based on certain contractual agreements between parties, which contractual agreements may also have been prepared in anticipation of having them recorded with the PTO Assignment branch. While Patent Agents would not be permitted to prepare the contractual agreements and would therefore not be covered by attorney client privilege, neither would a lawyer who is not a member of the relevant state bar be permitted to prepare the contractual agreement in a state of which they are not members of the Bar. As such, adding the Assignment issue to the list of benefits of dealing with a patent attorney versus a patent agent leads to a slippery slope in my view.

    1. 1.1

      You don’t know that. And, in fact, that is an insult to attorneys. The fact is that if we work on legal matters outside the scope of the PTO, we make sure that we are not practicing law without a license.

      1. 1.1.1

        Often in large firms like the one I work for we get an attorney that is licensed in the state where the company is located to work with the employment contracts, trade secrets, etc.

        So please do not imply that we regularly practice law without a license. We do not.

    2. 1.2

      Basically what you are saying is that agents should be able to practice law without a license because attorneys do it.

Comments are closed.