Randall L. Steel
-----Original Message-----
From: RSTEEL@...
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 4:48 PM
To: ethicsrules comments
Subject: Comments
Dear OED Ethics Rules Committee,
In preparing to take the Patent Bar Exam this Spring, I would
like to comment on the new rules. After reading the proposed
new rules, I am wondering why new candidates arelonger
allowed to bring in their notes and/or reference books to the
exam? It seems rather discouraging for a candidate to take a
6 hour exam at a computer workstation without any reference
material at my side (except the electronic MPEP ???). It
appears to me that when preparing for the exam (as in the
past), you would be able to take notes in preparing, and use
them during the exam. For myself, it is more difficult to
read a complicated word problem on a computer screen over a
printed document, and nevertheless, an electronic version of
the MPEP. Second, I’ve prepared a notebook for myself
that is indexed on Patent Law material, would it be possible
to allow the material into the exam like before? Also, it
would be beneficial to have a hardcopy of the MPEP at my side
since I spent hour’s !
tabbing the manual to my liking. Having an electronic copy to
use may be nice for some people, but I believe when
practicing in the industry, a practitioner is more than
likely to read the paper version over the electronic. Also,
why are license fee’s being initiated? It seems
irrational and unfair to place fees on someone trying to
benefit the arts of America. Why should it cost the
practitioner to maintain a license?
Secondly, I was listening to an IP lecture concerning newly
proposed rules being determined by the USPTO regarding
prospective clients and the disclosure of existing clients.
Wouldn’t it be self descrimination to a law firm or
intellectual property Boutique to inform all new prospective
clients about our existing clients even if a the projects
being performed weere dissimilar? I think most
companies/clients would deter themselves from your practice
if they knew that a competitor was working with the same
practice. I believe it to be a confidential matter between a
practitioner and client. It shouldn’t be dictated to
whom you’ve served or are serving, and from an ethical
standpoint, if conflicting matter occurs between two opposing
parties, then the attorney should initiate a red flag at the
time frame. Most practitioner’s understand the
occurrence between the Penny vs. Pfizer case, and no one
wants to destroy their company through promulgation of error.
I would app!
reciate your consideration on allowing a practice to
reconsider the proposed rules being drafted, and to
understand the outcome if such rules are put into practice.
Sincerely,
Randall L. Steel
Shook,Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
2555 Grand Blvd
Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
tele: (816) 474-6550 x17538
fax: (816) 421-5547
email: rsteel@...
“MMS <shb.com>” made the following
annotations on 03/16/2004 03:48:22 PM
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message including
attachments, if any, is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and /or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are
the intended recipient but do not wish to receive
communications through this medium, please so advise the
sender immediately.
IN THE U.S., please contact:
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
2555 Grand Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
816-474-6550
IN EUROPE, please contact:
Shook, Hardy & Bacon International LLP
25 Cannon Street
London EC4M 5SE
44-020-7332-4500
