Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Bits and Bytes, Patent

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

Hide comments

41 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni”

  2. 3

    How about instead of lowering the standards challenging and providing the POC with tools they need to succeed?

    Just insanity. I find it hard enough to practice before the USPTO now. I’ve been doing it for a couple of decades and have multiple science degrees, a law degree, and passed the registration exam. I constantly have to fight with examiners about the correct interpretation of the MPEP and have meetings with SPEs.

    I find it takes all my training to provide fair representation to my clients.

    2. 3.2

      “ it takes all my training to provide fair representation”

      Reminder that this “credentialed” commenter compared critics of software patenting to ter ror ists and more recently predicted that Lone S k u m would lead Twitter to a takeover of Google and Facebook.

      1. 3.2.1

        Malcolm,

        In your hurry to be derogatory, your “point” (if even there be one) is muddled.

        Are you saying that even the training of one such as Night Writer is not enough (as evidenced by your points of dissatisfaction), are you then agreeing with his point that requirements should NOT be relaxed?

  3. 2

    The USPTO is now considering other procedures and standards for non-registered attorneys. The Notice suggests a fitness-to-practice standard which would only require a familiarity with the rules of the PTAB and no prior disciplinary actions.

    This makes sense to me.

    1. 2.1

      >The USPTO is now considering other procedures and standards for non-registered attorneys. The Notice suggests a fitness-to-practice standard which would only require a familiarity with the rules of the PTAB and no prior disciplinary actions.

      It’s a race to the bottom.

      1. 2.1.1

        Yeah crazy. No SAT, MCAT, LSAT scores. I guess no need to pass any test as that would be asking too much.

        > “only require a familiarity with the rules of the PTAB”

        Yes, we figured out long ago that passing the registration examination and having training in science was a good way to measure a person’s fitness.

        I love how all the woke Left (all Ds) want everything to be a subjective test based identify politics. So, the new test would likely be based subjectively on your skin color based on some bureaucrat having to interview you and decide whether you were “woke” or a “MAGA” person. MAGA people would fail and “woke” people would pass.

        1. 2.1.1.1

          Night Writer,

          Don’t you know that ALL of those tests, based in understanding and applying logic, math, and (actual) critical thinking are SYSTEMICALLY RA C1ST…?

            1. 2.1.1.1.1.1

              Personal “truth,” lived “truth” be all the rage — even if objectively false, being PC means accepting such in an entirely unthinking manner.

              This is directly tied to the ANTI-science screed of “Don’t question The Science.”

              “Thank you,” religion of identity politics.

        2. 2.1.1.2

          Yeah crazy. No SAT, MCAT, LSAT scores.

          The proposal is to allow attorneys without a reg. no. to represent clients in IPRs/PGRs. In other words, these people will have graduated from law school, which means that they will have taken the LSAT.

          I do not expect that they will have to share their LSAT score with the PTO, just as neither you nor I had to share our LSAT scores in order to sit the patent bar. We allow attorneys without reg. nos. to defend against validity challenges in court already (even as lead attorneys). Only bar admission is required for that task. Why should more be required to defend validity in an IPR?

          Meanwhile, the MPEP has no relevance to IPRs. The PTAB is bound by the law, not by the nickel summary of the law that they give to examiners. A lack of familiarity with the MPEP is, therefore, not an obstacle to good representation of clients for this sort of practice.

          1. 2.1.1.2.1

            Another hidden hyperlink to a Drum article about Twitter, Musk, Taibbi, and Hunter Biden….

            Who are you signaling, Greg?

            By the by – the angst is LESS about non-USPTO registered attorneys (who as you note HAVE BEEN THROUGH the LSAT process), and more so the Equity-driven Political Correctness B$ that is infusing itself and metastasizing from Academia throughout the Liberal Left ideology into the larger society.

            You, being of the Liberal Left persuasion, are simply an already slow-boiled frog.

          2. 2.1.1.2.2

            By the way, the Drum story is demonstrably FALSE.

            Let’s stop with the blatant propaganda and DIS/MISinformation, GREG.

          3. 2.1.1.2.3

            Actually, Greg the MPEP is relevant in IPRs and, in fact, fundamental to IPRs as the entire issue is whether the claims were properly granted under the MPEP.

            1. 2.1.1.2.3.1

              [T]he MPEP is relevant in IPRs and, in fact, fundamental to IPRs as the entire issue is whether the claims were properly granted under the MPEP.

              Not really. Imagine a patent that was filed in 2005, and thus examined under a pre-KSR MPEP. Is the PTAB charged to review the validity of the granted claims under the standards set forth in that 2006 MPEP? No, they are charged to evaluate the claims’ validity under contemporary case law. Whether the claims were rightly granted at the time does not come into it. So long as the parties are both familiar with presently controlling case law, the lack of familiarity with the MPEP by one or the other side is really neither here nor there.

              1. 2.1.1.2.3.1.1

                So, the MPEP is relevant for IPRs. And, in fact, one of the ways of policing the PTO employees is with IPRs to ensure they have followed the MPEP as they are directed to by Executive Order.

          4. 2.1.1.2.4

            >>Hunter Biden, Joe’s son, has led a precarious life. He did lots of drugs.

            Greg, maybe actually read and understand what the Rs and the free media are saying. It is not about Hunter but Joe. There is substantial evidence that Joe was acting as a foreign agent while Vice President. And there is reason to believe that Joe is comprised now. It is objectively fair. The evidence is overwhelming that Joe should be investigated.

            You know the bigger picture is that we need widespread ethics reform. What Hunter did with the Chinese is very similar to what Trump’s son-in-law did with Saudia Arabia.

            We need an ethics overhaul to end the type of games played by Hillary, Trump’s children, Joe Biden, Trump, and so forth.

            1. 2.1.1.2.4.1

              The evidence is overwhelming that Joe should be investigated.

              I cannot say that I am really convinced of this, but I have good news for those who do think so: I expect that both Pres. Biden and his son will be extensively investigated over the next two years. These investigations may well be the main accomplishment of the coming House session.

              One does have to wonder, however, why the investigations have not already proven all of these alleged crimes. After all, the allegation is that Joe Biden was engaging in the putatively scandalous conduct back in 2012–16. From 2017 through 2021, the organs of investigation were in Republican control. We know that the Trump administration was aware of this putatively scandalous conduct, because Pres. Trump was impeached for trying to pressure Ukraine to launch an investigation.

              Why rely, however, on a smaller, poorer nation’s investigative organs? Why did our own investigators not deliver the proof that you are postulating? At what point will the lack of hard evidence convince you that you are chasing shadows?

                1. …

                  The government has been suppressing free speech and what exactly Joe Biden did has not been ascertained.

                  But you put out a nice spread of a word salad like the Biden administration does. There is no meaning to your words.

                2. …

                  I am giving you reality.

                  It really is the case that Republicans are about to take control of the House, and Rep. Jordan (incoming chair of the oversight committee) has announced intention to investigate Hunter and Joe Biden.

                  It really is the case that Republicans controlled the organs of Congressional investigation from 2014 through 2018.

                  It really is the case that Republicans controlled the federal executive investigative infrastructure from 2017 to 2021.

                  These points are all publicly verifiable facts. If—at this point—you still lack the hard evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden that you believe exists, why is that? Certainly the Republicans had both means and motivation to discover this evidence. At what point does their failure to produce it move you to adjust your priors?

                3. …

                  “The government has been suppressing free speech”

                  The lack of interest in Matt Taibbi’s reporting that the Trump White House directed Twitter to remove things from Twitter demonstrates how little these agitators actually care about free speech. It’s merely a rhetorical tool to apply to their opponents.

                4. …

                  Greg, the laptop was not investigated and was reported on starting right at the end of the Trump administration.

                  So, Biden has not been investigated for what money he took and what he did while Vice President and beyond.

                  Also, one of the problems is that the FBI has been acting as political agents for the D party. The FBI suppressed the laptop story along with 50 “intelligence officials.”

              2. 2.1.1.2.4.1.2

                “Why rely, however, on a smaller, poorer nation’s investigative organs? Why did our own investigators not deliver the proof that you are postulating?”

                Because it happened in the smaller nation and our investigators have no jurisdiction or investigative capacity there? There is no “proof” known to them I’m sure or they would deliver.

              3. 2.1.1.2.4.1.3

                Greg bro, you’re acting like you don’t know that the reps and the dems are just two sides to the exact same coin. The ruling elite. They have no big time reason to go super hard after biden, they don’t want people going super hard after them in 4-8 etc. years.

                1. …

                  6,

                  While it is certainly true and that the Deep State spans both parties, the “go after” has fractured more than just a little bit.

        3. 2.1.1.3

          “I love how all the woke Left (all Ds) want everything to be a subjective test based identify politics. So, the new test would likely be based subjectively on your skin color based on some bureaucrat having to interview you and decide whether you were “woke” or a “MAGA” person. MAGA people would fail and “woke” people would pass.”

          Already implemented comrade.

          “Yes, we figured out long ago that passing the registration examination and having training in science was a good way to measure a person’s fitness.”

          No comrade. Is bigoted.

    2. 2.2

      Me too. Get rid of the registration system. Any attorney licensed in any state (and DC or territory) should be able to practice before the PTO. (Cue the diaper soilers in 3, 2…)

      1. 2.2.1

        Meh,

        It is LESS about “diaper soilers” then YOU deign to believe.

        When the pass rates of that ‘mere secondary “bar” ‘ are appreciably different (that its, when EVEN the licensed attorneys can pass the registration exam at greater than 95%), THEN come with your whines.

            1. 2.2.1.1.1.1

              And again Greg insists on nearly invisible links…

              This one conflating as it is between mere dialogue bots and true AI at least does not fall to the category of overt propaganda.

              1. 2.2.1.1.1.2.1

                It’s not a good look for you “smelly breeze” to so closely emulate “p00py diaper”

                And yet, the instant you veer off strictly talking about substantive patent law,… there you are.

          2. 2.2.1.1.2

            Nice (misplaced) ad hominem, “Breeze.”

            Maybe you have something on point about the high rate of failures of those precious “but I have my JD” folks who cannot pass the registration exam?

            Thought so.

      2. 2.2.2

        Examiners don’t take the Registration test.

        Why should anyone else?

        How does a law degree qualify anyone to prosecute patent applications or appear before PTAB?

        How much time do law schools devote to patent law?

        From what I have seen law schools don’t even teach that “Argument Is Not Evidence.”

        Isn’t law school mostly about how to bill clients?

        1. 2.2.2.1

          How does a law degree qualify anyone to prosecute patent applications or appear before PTAB?

          I really think that we should distinguish here between “prosecute patent applications” and “appear before the PTAB” here. The PTO’s proposal is to let litigators appear before the PTAB in IPRs/PGRs (i.e., litigation).

          Letting litigators handle litigation does not seem that crazy. It is more of a stretch to let just any old attorney to prosecute patents (although not that much of a stretch).

          In any event, there is no proposal on the table to let all bar-admitted attorneys to prosecute patents, so the answer to such a question is of little practical significance.

        2. 2.2.2.2

          “Examiners don’t take the Registration test.”

          Just an FYI: Prior to COVID, examiners actually had to take a test that was supposedly a subset of the patent bar exam in order to have some autonomy in their work.

          Though the analogy to examiners is very poor. Every examiner is to some degree monitored by someone else as an employee of the PTO. This is not necessarily true for a practicioner.

          1. 2.2.2.2.1

            You want to put ‘weight’ into that “monitored by someone else” as having anything to do with actual quality or veracity to the law?

            How delusional – but you be you, Ben.

  4. 1

    News flash: identifying people by their body shape, body parts, clothing, smell, walking patterns, breathing patterns, movements, etc. is older than the hills.

    Everyone involved with that application should be ashamed of themselves but we all know that some patent attorneys have no shame. Heck, some of them even defend the behavior of corrupt Texas judges.

Comments are closed.