|
Page 1 of 1
Moatz, Harry
From: TBAKER@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 4:04 PM
To: ethicsrules comments
Cc: JKULBASKI@...
Subject: Comments
To whom it may concern:
Please see the attached document.
W. Todd Baker
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C.
1940 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Tel: 703-412-6383
Fax:703-413-2220
Email: tbaker@...
This email may contain confidential and privileged information.
If you are not an intended recipient of this email, please
notify the sender and delete the email.
2/10/04
February 10, 2004
SPIVAK
McClelland
NEUSTADZ'
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JAMES J. KULBASKI
(703)413-3000
JKULBASKI@...
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Mail Stop OED-Ethics Rules United States Patent and Trademark
Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Via E-mail addressed to ethicsrules.comments@uspto.gov
Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Changes to Representation of Others Before
the United States Patent and Trademark Office
68 Federal Register 69442 (December 12, 2003)
Dear Director:
Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt P.C. ("Oblon
Spivak") is one of the largest firms in the United States
specializing exclusively in intellectual property law. As
such, Oblon Spivak welcomes the opportunity to provide suggestions
and comment on the above-identified notice of proposed rule
making. In particular, Oblon Spivak provides herein suggestions
and comments pertaining to Subpart B.
As with all proposed rule making packages pertaining to practice
before the PTO, Oblon Spivak appreciates the opportunity to
provide comments and suggestions prior to the rule making
packages being officially adopted. Oblon Spivak provides their
comments and recommendations from the perspective of its over
100 patent and trademark practitioners.'
Subpart B Comments and Suggestions
Proposed rule 11.12(a) provides that "[a]11 practitioners
... shall complete a continuing education program as required
from time-to-time by the USPTO Director ....
' Oblon Spivak would like to thank W. Todd Baker for compiling
this letter of suggestions and comments.
1940 DUKE STREET I ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 223141 U.S.A.
TELEPHONE: 703-413-30001 FACSIMILE: 703-413-22201 WWW.OBLON.COM
Director of the United States Patent-and Trademark Office
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Page 2
The USPTO Director will announce each fiscal year whether
an education program will be required, and the dates for the
program. No more than one mandatory continuing education program
would be required each fiscal year and the requirement may
be as infrequent as once every three years." Further,
proposed rule 11.13(a) provides that "a continuing education
program is eligible to satisfy the mandatory continuing education
requirements ... if either: (i) the Office provides the program
via Web-delivery..., or (ii) a USPTO pre-approved sponsor
offers a course pre-approved by the OED Director ...."
Oblon Spivak first notes that it is not opposed to a continuing
education program in principle. However, Oblon Spivak is opposed
to the proposed manner of implementation of the continuing
education program. Oblon Spivak's primary concern with the
proposed continuing education program is its express exclusion
of law firms, professional corporations, and corporate law
departments as approved sponsors. The discussion of the proposed
continuing education program at page 69453, column 2, lines
9-13 provides that "[i]t is in the interest of the practitioner
community, applicants and the efficiency of the USPTO that
practitioners keep their legal knowledge current." Oblon
Spivak agrees. However, consistent with the practices of many
state bars including Virginia's state bar, Oblon Spivak strongly
believes that the practitioners themselves are well suited
and highly motivated through formal firm organized training
programs to educate their fellow practioners on current legal
developments in order to provide the best service possible
to their clients. A formal training session on patent practice
sponsored by a law firm which is approved for continuing legal
education by a state bar association should also be acceptable
to the PTO. The proposed rules would exclude such a program,
even if it is of high quality, solely because it is sponsored
by a law firm.
Oblon Spivak recognizes the benefits of the PTO emphasizing
a particular aspect of patent practice in view of its unique
perspective. However, Oblon Spivak is concerned with the apparent
distrust the PTO has shown in the ability of law firms, professional
corporations, etc. to play a role in the proposed required
continuing education process. Further, Oblon Spivak believes
that a more structured continuing education program having
a predefined commitment per year in terms of credit hours
would help further the goals of the proposed continuing education
program by requiring practitioners to regularly seek additional
education. As the program is proposed, it appears to Oblon
Spivak that proposed continuing education program has the
potential to be an indoctrination tool for the PTO to use
on an as needed basis solely determined by the PTO, and not
a "continuing" education program.
The Virginia Bar and other state bar organizations do not
require pre-approval for CLE programs, but approval can be
obtained after the program is completed. Of course,
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Page 3
the practitioner runs the risk of the continuing education
program not being approved, but this is a risk that a practitioner
should be able to take, if the practitioner so desires, and
a risk that the practitioner takes when attending many CLE
programs.
Finally, with regard to the proposed continuing education
program, Oblon Spivak points out that other than excluding
law firms, professional corporations, and corporate law departments
as approved sponsors, the proposed rules do not define the
pre-approval process (a) for selecting sponsors or (b) pre-approving
courses. As such, Oblon Spivak requests that the proposed
rules be reformulated to provide clarity and avoid future
abuses.
Very truly yours,
OBLON, SPIVAK, McCELLAND, MAIER& NEUSTADT P.C.
I:\Committee\Training\OED Rules Package\Cottunents OED Rules
IOF604.doc |