Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Agents (1)
- Applications (1)
- Breach (1)
- Burden of proof (1)
- Certification (1)
-
- Competency (1)
- Conduct (1)
- Gross negligent (1)
- Invention (1)
- Law review (1)
- Lawyers (1)
- Legal education (1)
- Legal profession (1)
- Legal scholarship (1)
- Negligence (1)
- Patent law (1)
- Patent representatives (1)
- Prior art (1)
- Public legal education (1)
- Rule 1.56 (a) (1)
- Rule 11.18 (1)
- Rules (1)
- Rules of disclosure (1)
- Technical training (1)
- Technology (1)
- Umass law (1)
- Umass law review (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Legal Profession
Cat, Cause, And Kant, Richard J. Peltz-Steele
Cat, Cause, And Kant, Richard J. Peltz-Steele
Faculty Publications
These are precarious times in which to launch a new law school and a new law review. Yet here we are. The University of Massachusetts is now in its first year of operation with provisional ABA accreditation. This text is a foreword to the first general-interest issue of the University of Massachusetts Law Review. Now marks an appropriate time to take stock of what these institutions mean to accomplish in our unsettled legal world.
Is It Time For A Rule 11 For The Patent Bar?, Ralph D. Clifford
Is It Time For A Rule 11 For The Patent Bar?, Ralph D. Clifford
Faculty Publications
The failure to require the patent bar to be completely candid in its dealings with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) is one of the reasons behind the patent quality problem in the United States. Although PTO regulations impose a duty of candor on both the patent applicant and his or he attorney, this duty of disclosure is limited to matters already known by the parties. The regulations impose no duty to become educated about the technology that underlies a claimed invention. Indeed, there are rational reasons why a patent applicant might seek an uneducated attorney and order him …