Thomas W. Adams
Moatz, Harry
From: tadams@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 9:51 AM
To: ethicsrules comments
Subject: Comments on Proposed Rules
Harry I. Moatz
Director of Enrollment and Discipline
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Mail Stop OED-ETHICS RULES
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
RE: Comment on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Rule Sections 11.12 and 11.13
Dear Mr. Moatz:
I take this opportunity to timely comment on the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for Rule Sections 11.12 and 11.13 that
was published in the December 12, 2003 edition of the Federal
Register.
I do not oppose a requirement for continuing education for
patent practitioners that is similar to the current
requirements of most state bars for legal practitioners. In
fact, the goal of requiring patent practitioners to obtain
continuing education credit that is accepted by most state
bar organizations, as stated in the Notice, is commendable. I
would support requiring that a portion of the state-mandated
CLE hours be patent-related for registered patent attorneys.
However, requiring an examination in conjunction with any
continuing education activities would be an onerous burden on
any active practitioner. An active practitioner must already
devote a significant amount of time to attend continuing
legal education programs and to keep apprised of the current
state of federal law, state law and PTO procedures. These
very activities, together with engaging in daily practice,
keep conscientious practitioners, such as all of the patent
practitioners in my firm, up-to-date on current patent laws
in order to competently represent our clients. Should an
additional requirement be instituted mandating an
examination, time over and above what is already devoted to
maintaining current knowledge of the law would be required to
diligently prepare for and take the examination. This is time
that would be removed from our practices, impairing the time
devoted to our clients and increasing the cost of our
representation. As a result, an examination as part of any
continuing education requirement would be a significant
burden upon active practitioners and our clients. The Notice
states that the continuing education requirement is modeled
after the state systems for attorneys. I am not aware of any
state requiring an examination as part of its continuing
education requirement once an attorney is admitted to
practice. Thus, an examination requirement lacks a basis in
the systems after which the continuing education proposal is
modeled.
I note that, in order to obtain credit for on-line continuing
legal education courses, which are taken on an unsupervised
basis, a simple examination must be completed at the end of
the course. However, such examinations are quite cursory,
serving primarily only to confirm that the practitioner did
in fact participate in the course. Such an examination
requirement would not be objectionable, if the Office
accredits on-line courses for fulfillment of the proposed
requirement. Finally, I do believe that patent agents should
be required to attend patent-related continuing legal
education activities. At this time, to my knowledge, there is
no such requirement.
Therefore, it is my view that, while continuing education
which is patent-related and a component of existing state bar
requirements is commendable, any examination requirement over
above a cursury confirmatory examination is unnecessary and
unduly burdensome.
Yours truly,
Thomas W. Adams
Reg. No. 35,047
1
Thomas W. Adams
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 Euclid Avenue, 19th Floor
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
216-621-1113
216-621-6165 (fax)
tadams@...
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE This message is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any use,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited if you are not the addressee. If you have received
this
communication in error, please immediately notify us by
e-mail, telephone (216)621-1113,
facsimile (216) 621-6165 and then delete this message.
Thank you.
2
