Law Commons^™

Rule-Making Petition Concerning Eligibility, Under 37 C.F.R. § 11.7 To Sit For The Examination For Registration To Practice In Patent Cases Before The United States Patent And Trademark Office, Thomas G. Field Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

This Petition under 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) is filed on behalf of Petitioner and other parties with legally-cognizable interest (hereafter “Signatories”) in the specification of credentials under guidelines promulgated by the PTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline (“OED”) and amended from time without public notice or opportunity to comment. Signatories include individuals likely to be unfairly refused permission to sit, individuals whose status is uncertain, and professors with an interest in whether their students may or may not be permitted to sit. Signatories hereby request that the PTO, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2)(D), amplify the qualifications sufficient to …

Zurko, Gartside, And Lee: How Might They Affect Patent Prosecution?, Thomas G. Field Jr

Law Faculty Scholarship

Interactions between the PTO and the courts are more complex than for most agencies. PTO decisions may be challenged not only directly but also collaterally. In the latter context, the Supreme Court has sometimes been critical of the lax standards applied when issuing patents.

While being upheld in collateral review is the ultimate issue of concern to patentees, patents must first be obtained. Thus, this paper focuses on direct challenges to PTO actions--and more specifically, on the review arising under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141-44 as addressed in Zurko, Gartside, and Lee.

Since the Supreme Court reversed the …

Direct Judicial Review Of Pto Decisions: Jurisdictional Proposals, Thomas G. Field Jr

Law Faculty Scholarship

Judicial review of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") decisions is complex-- perhaps more than that of any other agency. One source of complexity is that courts review its decisions both collaterally and directly.

One goal of this article is to map possible routes to judicial review and suggest strategies for avoiding jurisdictional uncertainties and delay. The core thesis of this article, however, is that parties should not need to cope with arcane review schemes. Direct PTO review can and ought to be simplified. This can be accomplished by adjusting the Federal Circuit's original and appellate jurisdiction.

Chevron Deference To The Uspto At The Federal Circuit, Thomas G. Field Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

Courts have long deferred to agency views of law, but they have also often refused. The Federal Circuit, too, defers on some occasions but not others. This paper examines the apparent inconsistency in its cases.

Zurko Raises Issue Of Patentability Standards, Thomas G. Field Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

In re Zurko isolated one of the oldest U.S. agencies from mainstream administrative law because the Federal Circuit has chosen to review the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office more as it would a federal district court. The case is important, if only because the Supreme Court rarely treats the PTO as an agency. Also, regardless of whether the issue or the Federal Circuit itself is the primary target, the decision could have a major effect on the type of case most commonly encountered by that court.

Brief Amici Curiae Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Petitoner, Thomas G. Field Jr., John F. Duffy, Craig Allen Nard

Law Faculty Scholarship

Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in 1946 as a comprehensive statute to regulate the field of federal administrative law. In holding that the PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is not subject to the standards of judicial review set forth in the APA, the [Zurko] decision isolates patent law from the rest of administrative law and undermines the APA’s goal of achieving consistency and uniformity in federal administrative law.

Amicus Brief Of Thomas G. Field, Jr., Pro Se Supporting In Principle, On Rehearing The Commissioner Of Patents And Trademarks, Thomas G. Field Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

To those unfamiliar with the long, often bitter, struggle over equally compelling needs to provide, on the one hand, innovators with an adequate opportunity to recoup risk capital and to avoid, on the other, erecting unwarranted barriers to competition, a dispute over the proper scope of review for Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) patent appeals will seem both trivial and arcane. This case involves more than semantics -- its resolution turns on the allocation of power among three, and arguably four, branches of government. This Court, itself, has a stake.

Promulgating Requirements For Admission To Prosecute Patent Applications, Michelle J. Burke, Thomas G. Field Jr

Law Faculty Scholarship

Among federal agencies, the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office is unique in its ability to require attorneys to submit to special requirements, such as passing a six hour examination, before being permitted to practice before it in patent cases. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that an individual so admitted to practice before the PTO need not comply with state requirements otherwise applicable to those practicing law.

The first part of this article discusses how this requirement came to be. It then discusses how the PTO determines whether an individual is fit to sit for the patent examination, focusing …

Access To And Authority To Cite Unpublished Decisions Of The Pto, Thomas G. Field Jr

Law Faculty Scholarship

This paper begins with the Solicitor [of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office]'s explanation of the term "unpublished." It then reviews various kinds of published PTO decisions where the precedential effect of unpublished decisions has been addressed. There, we see that the PTO has generally not ignored unpublished precedent--at least, deliberately--and that the Solicitor agrees that this may not be done. Next, this paper examines the almost universal practice of federal appeals courts disallowing use of their unpublished decisions as precedent--and some of the reasons for widespread criticism of that practice. It also discusses some of the reasons that judges, …

Brief Survey Of And Proposal For Better Reconciliation Of The Options In Patent, Trademark, Copyright And Related Law, Thomas G. Field Jr

Law Faculty Scholarship

Taking up trademarks, patents, copyrights, and trade secrets (in that order), [this article] will attempt to summarize briefly the ways in which such rights arise, are perfected, and are enforced. It will also discuss a hypothetical in which all of these options will be discussed in a comparative way. Finally, it will suggest that basic improvements in the area could be realized by dispensing with the often confusing and arbitrary subject matter distinctions which characterize the various subparts of the present intellectual property system.

The Fourth Dimension In Labeling: Trademark Consequences Of An Improper Label - Part Ii, Thomas G. Field Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

Where does the trademark user stand today? What should he do? Perhaps he should review all his labeling in the very near future to try to catch any heretofore missed improprieties therein. If he should miss one or two, however, will his valuable trademarks be regarded as ab initio invalid? Will they be cancelled, pirated away, refused enforcement or what?

in an attempt to answer those questions, it seems worthwhile to synthesize the law that has been heretofore covered, and, perhaps, try to condense it into a few meaningful principles by which the trademark user may be guided.

The Fourth Dimension In Labeling: Trademark Consequences Of An Improper Label - Part I, Thomas G. Field Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

As indicated by the title, this is an inquiry into the trademark ramifications of labeling. Certain kinds of conduct may well result in cancellation of federal rights in trademark registration. This is equally true with respect to trademark application for registration. It is therefore useful to consider at the outset the impact that improper labeling may have on a party's right to register. Most unfortunately, if [a] label defect is not detected in the registration process, or if there is substantial delay between commencement of use of the mark and attempted registration, a party may find his rights seriously compromised. …