Skip over navigation

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.


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 <>” 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

IN EUROPE, please contact:
Shook, Hardy & Bacon International LLP
25 Cannon Street
London EC4M 5SE

United States Patent and Trademark Office
This page is owned by Office of Patent Legal Administration.
Last Modified: 7/4/2009 5:47:51 PM