Dear Mr. Moatz,
I have the following comments on the proposed new rules for
Representation of Others Before the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) published in a notice in the Federal
Register on December 12, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 69442) (hereafter
the New Rules).
These comments are solely my own and may not represent those
of my employer or of any clients of my employer. These comments
are submitted on June 14, 2004 as June 11, 2004 was a federal
holiday.
Preliminarily, I think the review period has been far too
short (even with extensions) for such a large (122 pages!)
and significant rule change, particularly given the recent
and likely future changes in various state rules of professional
conduct for lawyers. I have not even tried to attempt the
daunting task of reviewing Subpart D of the New Rules, for
example, in light of the ABA Model Rules (which are evolving)
and the various state and other Rules of Professional Conduct
(which also are evolving) with which those rules may conflict.
For a review of Subpart D, I commend the AIPLA comments of
June 6, 2004, many with which I agree.
I trust the USPTO will (and I urge it to) publish these New
Rules (likely with revisions) again for further public review
and still keep them as proposed. A dialogue on the issues
covered in these New Rules must continue at least somewhat
further before they become final.
Mandatory Continuing Training – Rules 11.12 and 11.13
“If it ain’t broke why fix it?”
Fundamentally, I have difficulty in identifying why there
is a need to implement new mandatory continuing training when
so many other important issues could be addressed by the USPTO
with its limited resources, e.g., reducing pendency of patent
applications to reasonable periods (many software patent applications
are waiting 3 years for their first Office Action), stronger
examination to avoid issuance of invalid patents, better processes
to ensure patent prosecution is handled without frustrating
error, better documentation handling, and many other more
important and urgent endeavors.
I don’t perceive any competence problem with practitioners
at present or likely in the future. It certainly hasn’t
been identified in the New Rules. The New Rules refer to “members
of the public criticizing the competence of practitioners”.
Who specifically are making these charges and what are the
specifics and numbers of these charges? Have any surveys been
conducted to determine alleged practitioner incompetence?
Some bare anecdotal evidence doesn’t seem to me to be
a sufficient basis to impose a large administrative burden
on practitioners and the USPTO alike. The New Rules charge
that the lack of currency with practice requirements impedes
the efficiency and quality of the patent application process.
Again, what are the specifics and number of these charges?
Further, I commend looking at the basic issue of that charge
– the large number of substantive rule changes. Perhaps
the USPTO ought to slow down making so many substantive rule
changes so practitioners and USPTO staff alike can become
familiar with them – the application process seems to
have worked fine for decades and I don’t see why in
the last 5-10 years there has been an overwhelming need for
the avalanche of substantive rule changes issued by the USPTO.
Moreover, many USPTO staff often fail to understand all these
new substantive rule changes themselves – perhaps a
large part of the purported problem lies within the USPTO.
The New Rules refer to petition practice but again cite no
specifics or numbers. Mandatory training of practitioners
also will do nothing to change the time from filing to the
first office action in a patent application. The focus on
mandatory continuing training as some type of panacea to pendency
is simply misdirected.
In view of the lack of hard data supplied by the USPTO in
the New Rules, I decided to perform my own rough, unscientific
analysis to determine this sudden rash of practitioner incompetence
demanding drastic measures such as mandatory continuing training.
I reviewed the final decisions of the OED database at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/foia/oed/oed.htm
to see the number of final discipline orders issued against
practitioners. I found an under whelming 41 orders from the
period 1996 to 2003. That’s an average of about 5 a
year for 28,000 registered practitioners (as the New Rules
identify). As a comparison, the Virginia state bar has a membership
of about 23,750 lawyers in 2002 and the number of discipline
order was 393 in 2002 (http://www.vsb.org/vsbfacts.html) –
40 times more discipline orders for fewer practitioner. Further,
while I have not studied it, I imagine the vast majority of
the complaints made to the USPTO regarding the disciplined
practitioners referenced above have nothing to do with their
technical and legal competence. I imagine most complaints
relate to failure to communicate, inappropriate use of funds,
etc., skills that would never be addressed by any USPTO mandatory
continuing training.
I think it is plain to see from the foregoing that there should
be no particular cause for concern that requires the huge
time and effort spent by the USPTO to prepare and the profession
to review these New Rules or the adoption of the drastic measures
proposed therein. Perhaps practitioners suffer higher per
capita complaints/claims relative to other professions such
as doctors and engineers or to this profession in other jurisdictions
(e.g. Japan, Europe) but the New Rules don’t identify
that possible concern. There may be “bad apples”
in the profession but is it necessary for all practitioners
to suffer the costs of mandatory continuing training? Won’t
it be easier and less costly simply to discipline those “bad
apples.”. So I wonder “if it ain’t broke
why fix it”?
I think the basic technical (and in many cases, legal) education
and passing of a rigorous patent bar examination that is prerequisite
to becoming a practitioner is more than adequate – for
example, patent attorneys have typically achieved a 4 year
undergraduate technical degree, a 3 year law degree, a passing
grade in one or more state bar exams, and a passing grade
in the patent bar examination. Such training and achievements
are much more than the vast majority of workers in the United
States at all levels of seniority - the vast majority of those
workers not requiring any mandatory continuing training. What
is the compelling need to impose more burden on practitioners
than any other member of society? Is the USPTO’s aim
to drive practitioners or the work they do out of the profession
or out of the United States to jurisdictions where there is
no mandatory continuing training? No other country in the
world that I am aware of presently requires mandatory continuing
training for its patent professionals – not, for example,
Europe, Japan or Canada. Why sets practice in front of the
USPTO apart?
I submit that most, if not all, practitioners recognize the
importance of career-long learning and professional development.
Concern for quality is a part of that recognition but I would
suggest that market forces and malpractice concerns are an
even more important factor in driving continuing education.
The patent prosecution services business is extremely competitive
and if service is not satisfactory (whether from the viewpoint
of legal skill, technical skill, responsiveness, timeliness,
costliness, etc.) the client can (and will) surely find that
better service - whether in the United States or elsewhere.
There are always transaction costs to switching patent prosecution
service providers but they are becoming lower by the day due
to increased global competition in provision of services as
well as a result of new technologies (e.g. General Electric
and Philips are already beginning to send patent prosecution
related services to India where it can be done at lower cost
by personnel that would not be subject to mandatory continuing
training). The market forces practitioners to stay abreast
of the latest developments and to aim for the best service
possible. Inadequate or inappropriate service also may be
severely punished by malpractice suits. Are not these market
forces and malpractice concerns sufficient? Does the USPTO
consider there is a market failure or foresee a market failure
in this area? If not, isn’t the current system sufficient?
Personally, I think the current system is more than adequate.
Practitioners regularly and voluntarily update their skills
otherwise there wouldn’t be the market for the hundreds
of legal and practice seminars and courses offered whose flyers
seem to fill my and my colleague’s mailboxes. To me,
the tone of the New Rules implies that practitioners can’t
take care of their own competence. I think the USPTO underestimates
and misunderstands its practitioners, marketplace economics,
and the pressing desires of the public.
Further, most practitioners are patent attorneys. Patent attorneys
are already heavily regulated by their respective states where
they are admitted and by the rules of professional conduct
for lawyers of those states. Each such state has their own
disciplinary mechanism for remedying attorney misconduct.
No patent attorney wants to be disciplined by their state
bar. Also, many, if not most, state bars impose mandatory
continuing legal education. How much more regulation, supervision
and training is needed? Where does mandatory continuing training/education
end – when practitioners are too occupied with mandatory
continuing training to do any business with the USPTO? Does
every citizen of the United States need mandatory continuing
training to be a good citizen? Further, most, if not all,
other administrative agencies of the United States do not
impose mandatory continuing training for persons practicing
in front of that agency. What is the compelling governmental
interest to discriminate against practitioners that practice
in front of the USPTO?
I think that the USPTO and the practitioner community must
continue to find ways to serve the public effectively. I understand
the desire for the USPTO to be proactive in this regard. But,
at what cost? Surely the proposed mandatory continuing training
will be another cost of doing business that will be reflected
in client’s bills. Isn’t that one of the public’s
major complaints - practitioner’s fees are too high?
Such additional costs could also be another reason for clients
to move their U.S. patent prosecution services out of the
United States to lower cost venues (as has already started).
Mandatory continuing training and its administrative burdens
also means more time spent away from client’s affairs
and likely more non-returned client calls. Aren’t complaints
about practitioner non-responsiveness already high enough?
Further, I would think empirical (or at least anecdotal) evidence
would point out that practitioners already have unusually
high work burdens. Do they need to be overworked more and
lose more time from their families? I think the proposed mandatory
continuing training seems likely to incur more costs on the
profession as a whole than benefits returned. To think satisfaction
of the mandatory continuing training is only going to take
2 hours seems unrealistic – just dealing with computer
incompatibilities can take a whole day.
Additionally, I would ask what is the basis, support or proof
that mandatory continuing training is going to reduce or eliminate
the “problem” identified in the New Rules. No
evidence is provided and no analysis undertaken of the current
situation let alone how mandatory continuing training is going
to remedy the situation (assuming there is some type of significant
problem). Sure it seems to make some intuitive sense but it
assumes much. No system or human is perfect and there will
always be errors. No amount of training is going to eliminate
errors. Further, stress, time pressures, overwork, etc. cause
the majority of errors, omissions and bad practice. Training
on USPTO rules and regulations simply won’t be effective
in reducing these errors, omissions and bad practice. Sight
should not be lost of the cost-benefit analysis of whether
the cost (in the broad sense of the term) and effectiveness
of the solution will return proportionate or greater benefits.
The New Rules have not convinced me that this balance tips
in favor of mandatory continuing training.
I propose the USPTO more rigorously study this issue before
moving so quickly. Perhaps, the USPTO can study the complaints
against practitioners and survey the public and other interested
parties to determine if there is a statistically significant
problem in gross, presently or anticipated in the future.
No system is perfect. If there is a statistically significant
problem, the data should be analyzed to determine the cause(s)
of the problem. With the cause(s) accurately identified, effective
solutions can then be proposed to remedy the problem by attacking
the cause(s). For each solution, a cost-benefit analysis should
be made. Once this is completed, the solutions along with
the cost-benefit analyses should be presented to the practitioners
for review. I see no such analysis in the New Rules and I
don’t think the correct approach is to review solutions
(such as mandatory continuing training) without knowing exactly
the kind and extent of problem sought to be remedied, without
knowing the cause(s) of that problems, without knowing whether
the proposed solutions will be effective in their goal, without
knowing the costs and without knowing whether the benefits
are proportionate or greater than those costs.
Finally, I query the statutory basis for mandatory continuing
training. 35 USC 2(b)(2)(D) permits the USPTO to govern the
recognition and conduct of practitioners and may require them,
to become recognized, to show their good moral character and
their necessary legal/technical qualifications. I fail to
see how mandatory continuing education relates to the recognition
(a practitioner that would be subject to mandatory continuing
training already being recognized) and conduct of practitioners.
Further, the only review of legal/technical qualifications
by the USPTO identified in the statute is for recognition,
not thereafter. Accordingly, mandatory continuing training
may be ultra vires.
Suggestions
Unless and until proven to be needed and effective, I think
the mandatory continuing training rules should be eliminated.
If the USPTO nevertheless thinks it is an effective use of
its limited resources to impose mandatory continuing training,
I would suggest at least some significant changes to Rule
11.12.
First, the scope and content of the “continuing education
program” is too undefined. How difficult will this training
be? Will it be 3 days of 8 hour tests (or more)? The New Rules
simply provide no limits and so practitioners are dependent
on the whim and benevolence of the OED. Unacceptable.
The continuing education program will be required from time
to time. Can it be any more ambiguous? Will the USPTO announce
the course on September 29 and require completion by September
30? Everything else in patent prosecution has well-defined
due dates and/or generous time limits. This should be no exception.
Announcement through the Official Gazette and the OED web
site is inadequate. Failure to complete this mandatory continuing
training has the possibility of destroying a practitioner’s
livelihood (something for which he or she has spent years
upon years preparing and training for). The least the USPTO
can do is send a notice to each individual practitioner.
With no fee for taking the USPTO delivered mandatory continuing
training, I fail to see how mandatory continuing education
programs supplied by USPTO pre-approved sponsors will be successful.
These private providers will need to charge practitioners
unless the USPTO plans to subsidize them (a practice fraught
with danger so I will assume these private providers are not
subsidized). I trust the mandatory continuing training required
by these private providers will be substantially the same
or more difficult than that offered by the USPTO. If the programs
offered by the private providers are easier, then it will
simply set-up a scheme where the have practitioners “buy”
their mandatory continuing training, while the have-not practitioners
suffer. Also, I also consider it a conflict of interest if
the USPTO is both a provider of the mandatory continuing training
and the judge of who can be an approved mandatory training
provider. I think the USPTO should do one or the other, not
both.
It is not clear how a practitioner satisfies his or her mandatory
continuing training obligation if he or she uses a USPTO pre-approved
sponsor. Does the practitioner have to depend his or her livelihood
on the sponsor providing timely notice of completion of the
training?
That law firms, professional corporations and corporate law
departments are not eligible to become approved sponsors seems
absurd. Is this to make the mandatory continuing training
cost artificially high?
Attorneys should be exempted from the mandatory continuing
training at least because of their significant basic training,
i.e., 3 year law degree and successful passage of one or more
state bar examinations. Otherwise, patent attorneys with an
obligation to satisfy their bar(s)’s continuing legal
education requirement should be waived from or at least receive
credit towards the USPTO mandatory continuing training if
that bar continuing legal education comprises patent law courses.
Patent attorneys already have a technical degree, have a law
degree, have passed the patent bar, have passed a state bar
and are required to meet continuing legal education requirements.
How much more training do these practitioners need? In contrast,
patent agents typically only have a technical degree.
There also should be provisions for unintentional or unavoidable
failure to perform the mandatory continuing training since
the failure to perform can be fatal to a practitioner’s
livelihood.
Further, I trust the USPTO would put considerable thought
into how to resolve the continuing legal training burden imposed
on USPTO practitioners called to legal bars or admitted to
practice in front of other patent offices that also require
mandatory continuing training. In this global economy, this
will be a real problem. To many practitioners, there lives
may become filled up with the arcane and bureaucratic business
of sorting out whether certain training will be accepted by
their state(s) or patent office(s), finding courses to take
in order to get the most credit for the dollar, spending countless
hours trying to get credits recorded, etc.
Lastly, I think it is vital that the USPTO has a robust mechanism
to maintain the status and address information of practitioners.
For example, I recommend that the USPTO provide an electronic
service through the USPTO web site by which a practitioner
can make address and other changes directly and personally.
Incorrect address information can be fatal so a practitioner
should have real time access to and ability to change such
information. Also, a practitioner should be able to easily
determine that mandatory continuing training information has
been received and a practitioner’s registration maintained.
Annual Fee – Rule 11.8(d) and Rule 11.11(b)
I fail to see why it is necessary to set-up an annual fee
for maintaining registration as a practitioner. The annual
fee will likely not be an economic burden on practitioners
that will “clean out dead wood” from the register.
The annual fee will simply be priced into the fees paid by
the practitioner’s clients. As noted above with respect
to mandatory continuing training, this annual fee is only
going to lead to more complaints (probably to the USPTO) that
practitioners charge too much for their services. Why are
practitioners in front of the USPTO being singled out for
an annual fee when many other practitioners in front of other
U.S. government agencies don’t pay an annual fee? Indeed,
many other agencies, who don’t charge practitioners
any fee let alone an annual fee, don’t have the means
to recover their expenses through user fees like the USPTO.
Further, the annual fee is an administrative burden on practitioners
that can only have terrible consequences to the livelihoods
of practitioners. What does the OED hope to gain (except more
revenue and scorn) by striking innocent practitioners off
the list (and subjecting them to discipline) when the OED
fails to record an address change correctly or the mailed
notice from OED simply doesn’t reach the practitioner?
The annual fee requirement will simply set up more administrative
bureaucracy in the USPTO – something that’s definitely
not needed. Why can’t the OED get the money for their
programs from application fees, maintenance fees or other
fees? The annual fee will also impose more administrative
burden on practitioners, burden that probably exceeds the
$100 fee.
I also query the statutory basis for an annual fee. 35 USC
2(b)(2)(D) permits the USPTO to govern the recognition and
conduct of practitioners and may require them, before being
registered, to show their good moral character and their necessary
legal/technical qualifications. I fail to see how an annual
fee relates to the recognition (a practitioner already being
recognized) and conduct of practitioners. Accordingly, an
annual fee may be ultra vires.
If an annual fee is put in place, the USPTO should at least
send a notice to each individual practitioner identifying
the fee that is due and when it is due. If payment is late,
a notice should be sent my registered mail and, if the practitioner
provides an e-mail address, by e-mail. A notice by e-mail
alone is insufficient as e-mail can often be incorrectly filtered
out by spam filters. A modest penalty should only be imposed
for the late payment, not for “each rule violated”.
When a practitioner is administratively suspended, a notice
should be sent to the practitioner to that effect and advise
the practitioner of his or her ability to be reinstated. The
practitioner should be able to pay a more substantial fee
for reinstatement, not for “each rule violated”.
Further, there should be provisions for unintentional or unavoidable
late payment. After all, the consequences of a practitioner
to fail to pay a relatively small $100 fee is the loss of
his or her livelihood – it should be difficult for a
practitioner to be stricken from the register for failure
to pay a fee. These changes would align the U.S. system with
systems in other countries that have had much more experience
with this subject (e.g., Canada). I think there should also
be an option to pay the annual fee in advance, e.g., a practitioner
should be able to pay up a lifetime or some portion thereof
of annual fees to be safe in his or her livelihood.
Additionally, I think it is vital that the USPTO has a robust
mechanism to maintain the status and address information of
practitioners. For example, I recommend that the USPTO provide
an electronic service through the USPTO web site by which
a practitioner can make address and other changes directly
and personally. Incorrect address information can be fatal
so a practitioner should have real time access and ability
to change such information. Also, a practitioner should be
able to easily determine that fees have been received and
his or her registration has been maintained.
Finally, the fee must be exclusively used for OED purposes
and must not be diverted by Congress. Otherwise, there is
no point to this annual fee – just raise application
fees by several dollars.
Miscellaneous Comments
Rule 11.6
I fail to see why residence is a necessary condition to maintaining
registration as a patent attorney, patent agent or “foreigner”
as specified in Rule 11.6. Is it the belief of the USPTO that
somehow someone lacks the technical or legal skill once one
resides outside the United States? That doesn’t seem
to be a problem for a United States citizen according to Rule
11.6. Further, the reason can’t be to exercise some
sort of legal supervisory jurisdiction over that person since
“foreigners” seem to me to be pretty unreachable
to the USPTO and if someone, whether a U.S. citizen or otherwise,
resides outside of the U.S. they are going to be practically
out of reach of the USPTO under the New Rules. It may be appropriate
to lose registration status once one loses immigration status
in the United States but I don’t understand why that
should happen on change of residence. Consider a permanent
resident patent attorney in the U.S. working for a U.S. corporation.
This patent attorney is assigned to Japan for a year and then
returns to the U.S. Alas, that permanent resident patent attorney
may no longer practice as a patent attorney and must now re-apply
even though that patent attorney may have been performing
U.S. patent prosecution the whole time in Japan.
Subject matter not addressed in Rule 11.7 or elsewhere in
the New Rules
I think the New Rules should limit the number of times a candidate
for registration as a practitioner can take the registration
exam in a particular time period. That a candidate can take
the registration exam every 30 days is completely inappropriate.
Where is the incentive to become strongly familiar with the
subject matter? A candidate just needs to pay the fee and
try over and over and over. Eventually, the candidate will
get lucky and answer an appropriate number of questions correctly
(or have seen a large proportion of the questions). Also,
with the rumors that the exam will be available every day,
it will become apparent very quickly what all the questions
are in the database (unless this database plans to have millions
of questions) and their corresponding answers. The registration
exam will simply become a test of memorization, not of analytical
skill. If the USPTO thinks they have a current problem with
competent practitioners, wait until the registered practitioners
from these exams begin to practice. I think the USPTO should
have the exam administered twice a year – 6 months is
enough “penalty” for a failure and the likelihood
of all the questions and answers being discovered will be
relatively small.
Rule 11.7(d)(3)
Allowing former non-examiners from the USPTO to be waived
from the registration examination is inappropriate. Allowing
examiners to be exempted from the registration examination
(while to me also questionable) can at least be justified
in that their practice as examiners is a proxy for the substance
of the registration exam. I fail to see how the activities
of non-examiners at the USPTO can be seen as such a proxy.
If a patent litigator at the USPTO can be exempted from the
registration examination, why can’t a patent litigator
in private practice be similarly exempt? Fundamentally, they
may have the same knowledge and experience and may equally
not know the USPTO rules and regulations for patent prosecution
yet one is exempt from the registration exam and the other
is not.
Rule 11.16
The USPTO should only be able to examine the financial books
and records of a practitioner when the practitioner is subject
to review for violation of a disciplinary rule. The possibility
for the USPTO to review a practitioner’s financial books
and records at any time for any reason is unwarranted. Further,
measures are needed to protect attorney-client privilege and
to protect the privacy of the practitioner’s clients
(whose sensitive information may be included in the practitioner’s
financial books and records).
Rule 11.20(b)
I don’t consider it appropriate that the USPTO may require
a practitioner to make restitution or satisfy some other “reasonable
condition”. The USPTO’s authority extends to practice
before the USPTO and its powers should be limited to the control
of the practice of the practitioner in front of the USPTO,
e.g., through suspension or exclusion. Restitution extends
beyond this mandate and is more appropriately addressed through
other channels, for example, legal proceedings, which have
the means and expertise to determine appropriate restitution
amounts. Further, the scope of the term “reasonable
condition” is too broad and ambiguous. The public should
know exactly the types of punishments they may face so they
can choose whether to enter or stay in this profession or
not.
Rule 11.24(e)
Double punishment seems inappropriate, particularly restitution.
Only discipline that is unavailable to the state bar and unique
to the USPTO should be available to the USPTO. Otherwise,
this provision discriminates against attorneys since agents
are unlikely to be subject to any discipline.
Rule 11.58(b)(1)(ii)
This should read, in part, as “Provide notice to all
bars of which the practitioner is a member as an attorney.”
The practitioner should only have to notify state bars of
which the practitioner is a member, not possibly every organization
to which the practitioner is a member.
Rule 11.58(b)(2)(v)
This paragraph should be deleted as being redundant with the
substance of Rule 11.58(b)(2)(vi).
Rule 11.58(b)(4)
This should read at the end “as to that business.”
Former practitioners should be able to advertise to persons
that have business before the USPTO for services other than
patent prosecution in front of the USPTO as such activities
are outside of the jurisdiction of the USPTO.
Rule 11.58(e)(3)
I think most of the exclusions herein are beyond the regulatory
scope of the USPTO and extend into the regulation of the practice
of law, something governed by the states. In my view, the
USPTO’s authority extends to the recognition of practitioners
before the USPTO (i.e., maintaining the list of registered
practitioners) and controlling the appearance of practitioners
before the USPTO (i.e., permitting practitioners to participate
in USPTO proceedings and to control communications with USPTO
personnel). I feel direct control of day to day activities
of practitioners (particularly practitioners that are lawyers)
is beyond the scope of the USPTO’s powers. For example,
I believe the USPTO can’t limit a lawyer from providing
advice on patent law, something which I think the USPTO attempts
to restrict, for example, through Rule 11.58(e)(3)(ii).
Rule 11.59(a)
I think “and any appropriate bar association”
should be removed from the end of this provision. A suspended
or excluded practitioner will have already been sufficiently
vilified. Just because the practitioner is suspended or excluded
should not damage his or her ability to continue practice
in another field. Notifying bar associations can only do more
damage to the suspended or excluded practitioner than good
to the general public as the practitioner’s suspension
or exclusion may not necessarily adversely reflect on his
or her provision of services other than before the USPTO.
Further, this provision discriminates against attorneys as
agents are not members of bar associations.
Please confirm receipt.
Respectfully submitted,
Jean-Paul Hoffman
|