USPTO on “President Trump’s Leadership”

Although USPTO Dir. Andrei Iancu is a political appointee nominated by President Trump, he has largely stuck to the tradition of avoiding partisan politics in his official role as Director.  For instance, Dir. Iancu supported the re-appointment of Drew Hirshfeld as the Commissioner of Patents. Hirshfeld had been Dave Kappos’ Chief of Staff under President Obama.

That said, the USPTO is catching a bit of flack for what appears to be its first overtly pro-Trump tweet coming less than a week before the elections:

The IP Index noted here was released in February 2020 and did rank the US as #1. The Index also ranked the U.S. as #1 every year since it was first released in 2012. The ranking is released by the U.S. Chamber, a lobbying organization that supports U.S. business.

I personally don’t think that this is a big deal and only barely a violation of norms if at all. Trump has been president for four years, and his administration should get some credit for maintaining the #1 ranking.

I’ll also note that USPTO twitter account also promoted Obama as an innovation leader during his presidency.

83 thoughts on “USPTO on “President Trump’s Leadership”

  1. 10

    Much. Ado. About. Nothing.

    Nothing.

    Now let’s all get back to work . . .

  2. 9

    I hear lots of yapping below about whether it is a Hatch Act violation.

    I’d have to see some case law on it.

    I’d guess this is a pretty clear violation.

    1. 9.1

      Stop guessing. Just read the Hatch Act. Paul was nice enough to note the item, and it did not take long at all to read through. Just think of it as an opportunity to refresh your critical reasoning skills.

      Seriously folks, those getting worked up here are just showing their emotional side getting in the way of doing any actual thinking.

      1. 9.1.1

        “Worked up”? I am not worked up. And again I’d like to see some case law of how the Hatch Act has actually been applied.

        1. 9.1.1.1

          You personally may not be worked up, but have you read the other comments?

          One of attorneys showed me an article in Law360 as well — some are absolutely losing their minds over this.

          The sad thing about the Law360 article is that it heavily featured law school professors who are going off the deep end. The very people grooming our next generation of attorneys.

          1. 9.1.1.1.1

            Law professors should be renamed “large corporate advocates” that published paid advocacy as scholarship.

          2. 9.1.1.1.2

            Yeah. We know the English language can be hard. What does “onus” mean to you?

            1. 9.1.1.1.2.1

              Who is ‘we?’

              Why are you projecting some type of uncertainty concerning the word ‘onus?’

              Why would you post this choice of yours to this particular comment of mine?

              Are you that sad and confused that you cannot even bother to find the particular one of OH SO MANY obsessive posts of yours that over the past two months now or so has seen but ONE single post (last night) from you that actually tried to engage someone else – out of well over a hundred posts of yours?

              In the over 15 years of commenting on this blog, I can pretty much guarantee that NO ONE else has engendered such a dedicated and cultish following that you have provided to me.

              But is ‘thank you’ the right phrase to use?

              1. 9.1.1.1.2.1.1

                “We” is plural, 20 bucks a pop. In English your question would be “who are we?” I can recommend a few adult education courses for your attempt at learning the English language.

                1. You quite miss the point again, Shifty.

                  YOUR use of “we” as a rhetorical device is merely YOU affecting to speak for multiple people when YOU only speak on your own accord.

  3. 8

    Obama/Biden brought us Michelle Lee, the AIA, and the patent-killing PTAB as a quid pro quo gift to big tech. The US has returned to #1 (questionable) after the Obama/Biden patent killing AIA dropped the US out of the top 10 thanks to Trump’s appointment of Iancu and the policies that Iancu has enacted countering the PTAB’s invalidating at least 75% of all patents it reviews. Electing Biden/Harris would mean firing Iancu and replacing him with another big tech sycophant like Lee who reverses all the good that Iancu has done as another quid pro quo gift to big tech. Big tech owns Biden/Harris and the Dems as evidenced by their enormous contributions to the Dems and their unapologetic censorship of any opposition to the Democrat platform. Dennis unshockingly is a liberal Democrat academic who supports Biden/Harris as seen by this post. He, like most Dems, ignore the obvious facts and horrendous effects of Democrat policies and laws to protect their idea of what America should be. Their ideas and policies don’t work outside of an academic environment where, again, opposition is not tolerated and censured. Vote TRUMP if you want to SAVE the US patent system and stop Democrats from destroying it. Vote TRUMP if you want to see the US patent system continue to be ranked #1. P.S. All opposition to this post will try to discredit the overwhelming facts supporting it.

    1. 8.1

      Without supporting Trump, it is pretty amazing to see that the “D” party has become the party of Big Tech (and the anti-innovation, leastwise patents, that goes along with protecting the large established entities).

      They say that politics makes strange bedfellows, so there goes your proof.

    2. 8.2

      It is weird that Obama/Ds went to bed with Silicon Valley.

      And it is clear that SV is doing everything they can to trash Trump.

      And it is clear that innovation is moving to China. China is now the undisputed leader in 5G technology. And rising quickly with AI. And continues to strengthen their patent system.

      The USA is trashing its patent system to protect the monopolies of the few giant SV companies. Shameful.

      I watched the Rise of Rome on Amazon Prime. The USA has definitely reached the part where the Republic fell. The key is that the politicians are after their own wealth and aggrandizement and not taking care of the business of the USA.

      So long USA. I guess we will be OK for another 100 years in our decline. My prediction is that the few giant monopolies that are holding our tech together will be devastated from Chinese companies. The USA without patents is no longer able to foster the new companies that could replace or force major change to the current companies so what will happen when the landscape changes is that the USA companies will stagnate and the Chinese companies that are forced to innovate by their patent system will wipe of the USA companies off the map.

      1. 8.2.1

        There isn’t much difference between the Ds and Rs.

        Probably if the Rs win this election, SV will find a way to buy the Rs.

        1. 8.2.1.1

          Then why didn’t big tech try and buy Rs after the last election? It’s because they overwhelmingly favor the unworkable, unrealistic, country-killing ideologies of the left. Which is paradoxical when you consider that they’re the greediest SOBs on the planet.

  4. 7

    In this highly partisan world, I appreciate your objectivity. We could all use some more objectivity.

  5. 6

    Wow. How ironic that the President that stacked the CAFC with appointments selected by SV that were anit-patent judicial activists and passed the AIA and oversaw the value of patents drop by 80 percent tell us that he is pro-patent and innovation. Kind of like Reagan passing all sorts of anti-environmental laws and telling us that he is pro-environment.

    Also ironic that the likes of J. Reyna would call for sanity when he had zero patent experience and no training in science and was selected by SV to burn the patent system down using judicial activism rather than our process of making laws.

  6. 5

    Where are my comments?

    1. 5.1

      You probably used a filter word. There are many words of negative connotation that when included in a post cause the post to go into a moderation queue. If your post isn’t truly awful, Dennis will release it eventually.

      1. 5.1.1

        OK, I guess. Should publish a list of those words!

        1. 5.1.1.1

          They tried to.

          It was blocked by the filter.

          1. 5.1.1.1.1

            Interesting, 20 bucks a pop. 20 bucks?

            1. 5.1.1.1.1.1

              um, are you still having difficulty with how YOUR choice of inanity has been enterprised upon?

              OK, here you go (again): link to patentlyo.com

              1. 5.1.1.1.1.1.1

                Can you rephrase that to be cogent, 50 cent?

  7. 4

    “I’ll also note that USPTO twitter account also promoted Obama as an innovation leader during his presidency.”

    The tweet regarding Obama appears to relay news of the president talking about patents (not an every day occurrence) during a non-presidential election year. That does not seem analogous.

    1. 4.1

      Indeed, and nowhere near any election date and by a President in his second term and thus Constitutionally ineligible to run.

      1. 4.1.1

        Well, it was 32 days from the 2014 midterms.

        Not to understate the difference between a tweet reporting the words of the president, and a tweet lauding the president. The is a fairly egregious example of “both sides”ism.

  8. 3

    This tweet is framed of as a quote of Iancu. Did he recently make a public speech that includes this quote?

  9. 2

    Some comments here are ignoring or obfuscating the question here, which is: Is this a violation of The Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326, as amended, which prohibits ANY Federal officer or employee from involvement in partisan political activity on government premises or using government funds, phones, etc. ? [And any other such statutes.] Nor are alleged political scandals by others of any excuse, defense, or relevance.

    1. 2.1

      I hope not. I am not a fan of Iancu or Trump, but this is such a mild statement that I’d rather live in a world where it did not constitute partisan political activity, even if that was the motivation.

    2. 2.2

      I’d say a clear violation. No doubt about it.

      Pretty minor, but this should not have been sent.

      1. 2.2.1

        You would say so, eh?

        Please point out that clarity. (keep in mind my comment to Paul at 2.3 below)

    3. 2.3

      U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326

      Do you say now, eh Paul?

      First, thank you for the citation. It was an interesting read.

      But please, do NOT sit on the sidelines at snipe with your “some comments here are ignoring or obfuscating” denigration.

      Which part — exactly — of the The Hatch Act do you see a violation?

      And I do mean one not provided for (allowed by) 5 U.S. Code § 7324. (b) (2) (B) (ii)

    4. 2.4

      No violation. The Hatch Act is directed at more overt political and partisan activities concerning the outcome of an election, not generic statements like this. I have no doubt the upcoming election was a key motivation for the Director to include the preposition phrase, “under President Trump’s leadership,” but that statement doesn’t rise to the level of a Hatch Act violation. It is entirely appropriate for people to question the ethics and propriety of issuing such a statement so close to an election, but the Director didn’t break the law by doing so.

  10. 1

    lol – a “Oh N0es” looking for a calamity.

    “Overt”….?

    the sensitivity here – and the utter silence on other political scandals is, well, rather amazing.

    (I do suppose at least this does have a tie to the patent office, as Trump’s ’employee’ in the Executive Branch is Director Iancu)

    1. 1.1

      He’s not Trump’s employee. He is our employee.

      1. 1.1.1

        He is a member of the Executive Branch. He is very much a Trump employee in the sense that all members of the Executive Branch are employees of Trump.

        The sky is not falling.

        1. 1.1.1.1

          He’s a government employee who is appointed by Trump. That does not make him Trump’s employee. That makes him our employee. If he is Trump’s employee, have Trump pay his salary.

          1. 1.1.1.1.1

            Put aside your emotion for just a minute.

            Trump is our employee in the sense that you are trying to use.

            But realize the structure of the government and the sense with which my comment is made.

            You have blinded yourself to reason.

            It does not look good on you.

            1. 1.1.1.1.1.1

              With your casual acceptance of corruption, it doesn’t really matter how you view me.

              Trump is definitely our employee. People shouldn’t have to worry about the political biases of the head of the USPTO.

              1. 1.1.1.1.1.1.1

                Y
                A
                W
                N

                There is no causal acceptance of corruption.

                Get your undies out of that twist.

            2. 1.1.1.1.1.2

              But keep in mind — anon does not get paid per post. He gets paid when somebody responds or “engages” with his nonsense.

              “20 bucks a pop.”

              1. 1.1.1.1.1.2.1

                Not just someone, and not just any old response.

                You should know better, but then again, you do seem to revel in not understanding context.

              2. 1.1.1.1.1.2.2

                Watch Shifty turn ‘game-playing’ into his own odd meme…

                Just as his own game-playing is on display, with links provided at: link to patentlyo.com

                (and please, Shifty, delight me with your protest of vague on something that YOU merely do not understand, so you project your own LACK onto someone else)

              3. 1.1.1.1.1.2.3

                See link to patentlyo.com – now about 75 posts in a row at a 100% obsess10n rate and with a ZERO percent meaningful add to dialogue rate.

                “But keep in mind…” indeed

              4. 1.1.1.1.1.2.4

                Shifty, really? Burying a reply a month and eleven days to one of my posts that you were not even previously engaged with?

                That’s pa thet ic.

                1. … especially when ALL of that you, Shifty, post has recently been answered, and you, Shifty, only continue to post nonsense.

                2. BWAAAHHAAAH !!! You’ve answered everything???

                  Who is this entity, employer, person, thing, whatever, who gives you “20 bucks a pop” ????

                3. BWAAAHHAAAH !!! You’ve answered everything???

                  What is the context for your assertion that I have answered everything?

                  And please, do not pretend that one of your beddy-by time questions that I had not yet seen ‘counts’ as some type of question that I have refused to answer — especially given how many questions directly put to you that you have refused to provide a cogent and meaningful answer to.

                  That is, unless of course you want to continue being the absurd case that you are. If that is the case, then by all means continue to employ that meme/tell.

                  And I will continue to enterprise off of your inanity.

                4. “What is the context for your assertion that I have answered everything?”

                  Do you even read what your script says? Look at your “comment” above, 20 bucks a pop.

                5. I am asking you for the context.

                  You do know what the word ‘context’ means, right?

                  What was your job at the patent office before you retired?

                6. Apparently, 20 bucks a pop, “context” is some kind of magic word to you. So, enlighten us. Now is your chance to explain the “context” of your comment above. Fill this room with your intelligence.

                7. You’ve tried this tell/meme before.

                  I asked you first – no flipping this back to me.

                  You think it to be some type of magic word? Why?

                  Better yet, just answer the question put to you.

                8. By virtue of such an incredible and witty comeback, my colleagues have decided that you will receive three (3) US dollars.

                9. What is the context for this assertion of yours of “my currency?”

                  This meme/tell of yours of inserting a false point as a given f00ls literally no one.

                  That you insist on posting in such manner is rather…

                  …telling.

                  (and it is not telling anything good about you)

                10. What is the context for this assertion of yours of “my currency?” (vis a vis conversion)

                  This meme/tell of yours of inserting a false point as a given f00ls literally no one.

                  Still.

                11. And now ladies and germs, 50 cents a pop will once again prove he’s not totally obsessed with us by not responding to this post.

                12. You have attempted this tell/meme before, and I have explained exactly why my responding and pointing out your dross is NOT a sign of obsess10n.

                  The sign of obsess10n is better displayed by YOU looking in the mirror.

                  For example, in the past eight weeks, you have made in the neighborhood of 200 posts.

                  You have a sum total of THREE that have not been to or about me.

                  Three.

                  In that same time frame, I speak on point and with cogent additions to dialogue to MANY different people on MANY different topics.

                  Guess what, Shifty: even you can take a moment and look at the actual written record and confirm that my point here is perfectly accurate.

                  And here is (another) huge hint as to answering the “WHY” of my enterprising off of YOUR choices of various levels of inanity that you post with. I make bank on your obsess10n.

                13. Do you? in the context of a blog?

                  On another thread, it appears that you are thinking that somehow there are more formal requirements for blog posting.

                  Do tell if this is a new meme of yours…

                  (hint: this appears to be yet another set of ACME plans that will only result in yet another anvil to your noggin, Mr. Wile E)

                14. Ding Ding Ding !!! Something about a coyote.

                  And the boy was doing so well !!! Avoiding the tells. !!!

                15. something about…

                  something?

                  Please, even you can easily understand the context of your choice in historical pseudonyms and my prior recommendation to you of choosing one that actually matched your posting style: that of the cartoon character Wile E. Coyote.

                  By the way, this would be called a meme. Sort of like your “Ding! Ding! Ding!

                  As I have L O N g put to you, if you are going to insist on mislabeling, then your actions need to be at least consistent, and ‘avoiding’ may be advice that YOU should follow first.

                16. who is this (implied plural) ‘we?’

                  Is not one of that multitude conversant with simple linking?
                  What does that tell about you (the singular you), Shifty?

                  It’s not as if it is a totally blind link at that.

                17. Oh, I understand your ‘choice’ not to ‘do links,’ but I am making it easier for all other readers to track your inanity.

                  After all, the written word IS here (and I am merely making it easier to get to that written word).

                  How can you mind that (unless, of course, you have a reason why you are choosing not to ‘do links’ – perhaps one that happens to coincide with my enterprising off of your choices, eh?)

      2. 1.1.2

        The PTO Director, like of hundreds of other executive level appointees, serves at the pleasure of the President.

      3. 1.1.3

        Well, yes & no. The USPTO is now supposed to be a self-sufficient entity not requiring taxpayer support (which is a BIG problem now)!

        1. 1.1.3.1

          These responses are hilarious! I guarantee that everyone objecting to Iancu’s tweet is a Democrat that would have no problem with it if it were Michelle Lee’s tweet re Obama! LOL!

Leave a Reply

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

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture