Source: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/03/unauthorized-practice-regulators.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:45:03+00:00

Document:
It’s okay Dennis they are going to hear it and told you heard it first.
>Janson v. LegalZoom.com, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (W.D. Mo. 2011).
Huh. It does seem that he has a non-trivial defense.
I don’t know. Weird to say that all patent law is precluded by federal law when there is licensing, consultation of whether to litigate, claim charts, etc.
Seems like what is covered by the PTO is fairly narrow and the Patent Act. Plus, the causes of action in the Patent Act are just merely federal causes of action. Is the state court saying that you can practice law as long as it is federal causes of action?
Hmmm….seems like there is a lot here to think about.
People need to read McCabe’s blog for a better understanding of the sordid facts here.
This profession is troubled enough without parasites like this cl0 wn.
Let’s take a guess as to the subject matter focus of the applications this guy was “handling.” Anybody?
..because there is a (purported/implied/feelings) causal relationship there, right Malcolm?
It’s called a “correlation”. Identifying them is something we can do freely because (in part) people like me punch people like you in the face on a regular basis.
We know that facts frighten you, Bildo. Go cry yourself another river.
Lol – the Internet tough guy routine is so charming.
Your innuendo (rather than actual facts) is noted.
Are there any PTAB judges who have been promoted out of the examiner ranks who do not have law degrees?
Should examiners without law degrees be permitted to suggest claim amendments to unsuspecting pro se inventors?
Iirc there used to be, but I don’t think it happens much if any today. There are enough examiners/managers with law degrees for them to be able to pick those instead. Which you may as well if you have the choice.
Yes, that’s been office policy for forever. The office (all of the office personnel) can suggest what they would find distinguishes etc. though the office doesn’t usually take part in behind the scenes consulting work on what would help the applicant etc.
Answer to question 1 is no.
One traditional answer to question 2 is that if you take free advice [on amending your claims, etc.] you are getting what you paid for.
The job requirements for a patent job include a law degree and admission to at least one state bar.
Are you pulling our leg NWPA? We all know the guy didn’t ask you “do you want to burn the patent system down?” when you’re literally shilling for the patent system every day of your life. Why would he possibly ask you that?
6, I embellished. But basically, yes, what I said is true.
With respect to number 2, I find it interesting that Mr. Steiert could theoretically join the PTO branch in Colorado as an examiner; suggest the same claims to an unsuspecting pro se inventor; and, the system would permit it. Seems like there is a flaw in the PTO’s longstanding tradition of letting examiners who are untrained in 35 USC §271 suggest claims to pro se inventors.
What flaw would that be?
There is a flaw representing a failure to understand how the Supremacy Clause governs the ability of the States to govern the actions of Federal employees in the course of their duties. There is a flaw representing a failure to distinguish between suggesting claims in prosecution (35 USC 131) and accusing devices of infringement (35 USC 271).
Perhaps he is demanding a Miranda-like warning concerning prosecution history estoppel. That’d be fun.
Typically, Examiners with four years of experience can have the patent bar examination waived if they apply for registration as a patent agent (see General Requirements Bulletin). Apparently in the eyes of the patent office, experienced examiners are at least as able to recommend claim amendments as newly minted patent agents.
I have to wonder if the registered attorneys (they are named in the linked articles), are themselves set up for disciplinary actions.
The PTO OED reads decisions like this carefully for the possibility of its own disciplinary investigations.
I wonder what sort of applications were being prosecuted.
I’m sure just the best ones ever.
Are you ok? You seem angry? All posts you have are really negative against the patent system in every way possible and against others personally.
Being perpetually disgruntled isn’t the best way to live life.
You must be new here. “MM” (aka Malcolm) has been this way for some fourteen years (at least).
This was documented awhile back on one of the occasional Prof. Crouch “let’s have a nice ecosystem” efforts.
His attitude most likely comes from a prominent cognitive dissonance of his working in a field (and ostensibly creating work product) of a nature of Private personal property that rankles his Liberal Left mindset (as these items created are more or less created in order to engage in the crass “make money” activities that he loathes.
Not totally new here – just tired of his ranting against the US patent system.
It’s like an uninformed 1st year gunner on steroids that thinks everyone believes he is smart because the prof calls on him without the self-awareness that he is called on as a foil for a dumb response to the question at hand.
How do we engage the mute/ignore option?
The sad thing is that there is a cadre of confirmation-biased individuals that absolutely lap up Malcolm’s ven0m.
Not to get preachy, but I am reminded of Matthew 18:6.
Were he to actually engage (as opposed to his typical drive-by monologue style), he might raise to that “play the foil” level that you speak of.
This doesn’t anger me. It’s weird. But it doesn’t anger me.
MM stays angry so that if he comes across any white mail or space robots he can hulk out on them at moment’s notice.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean and no way am I clicking on that link. But I lol’d at the hulk reference. Friday Nights right before the Love Boat?
Hey you kids, get off of my lawn.
I don’t have a lawn. But if I did, I wouldn’t care if kids were on it, provided they werent wearing MAGA hats and burning a cross.
Color me surprised! Actually not. The only thing that can even produce an MM is a city. Born n raised city slicker weren’t ya?
I live in the country and take the train to work or I work remotely. Lawns are silly, especially if you live in a warm climate where it doesn’t rain much for half the year.
I have a garden. I grow ornamental plants, succulents, vegetables, fruit and weed. Oops, I meant to say weeds (as far as you know).
You should have anon over so you guys can smoke up, listen to some Samaya and argue about 101 irl. Can livestream the fisticuffs.
6, I think shrooms would make a better trip for your link.
Scared of youtube are we now boomer? It’s the hulk clip from the first avengers where bannon reveals his secrit to controlling when he hulks out.
Good question anon. I would think they would be subject to discipline.
As it is in the model rules that you can’t start a company with a non-attorney running it.
Is Janson v. LegalZoom.com, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (W.D. Mo. 2011) distinguishable as supplying forms, not attorneys, and is this Colorado decision supportable by the Sup. Ct. decision in Gunn v. Minton (2013) [Applying Grable, “state legal malpractice claims based on underlying patent matters will rarely, if ever, arise under federal patent law for purposes of §1338(a)”] (9-0, Roberts)?
From a quick read, I think that there were pretty specific “law firm cannot be run by a non-attorney” aspect involved here.
So yes, the cases may well be distinguishable along the lines of “supply mere forms” versus providing legal services (although I can see that line quickly being blurred the moment advice as to which forms are to be supplied is part of a service).
Can be be owned, but not “run” by the non-attorney?
As far as I can tell you, it depends on the State.
But attorneys are hired by clients that do that all the time. Just ask Rudy Giuliani.
Have you heard of Michael Cohen?
So, that’s s pretty dumb justification for a very suspect law.
You are invoking two infamous loathsome criminals as evidence that “everybody does it”?
I didn’t say everybody does it.
I said preventing a non attorney from owning a company that hires attorneys on behalf of others does not address the problem.
Furthermore, it seems to unnecessarily limit/punish the freedom of honest entrepreneurs.
Furthermore, what does it say about what Colorado thinks of attorneys if they they that if a boss tells them to do something unethical or illegal they will do it?
And if attorneys are so easily swayed to the dark side, how does it help the situation to require that an attorney run the company?
To venture along my own path, the present case may distinguish from Perry in a subtle manner.
In Perry, Florida could not reach the practitioner because that practitioner was properly operating within the bounds of the Federal exception.
In the present case, Mr. Steiert was not, and thus, could not depend on the exception applying to himself.
Additionally, as noted in the linked coverage, Mr. Steiert violated the UPL by filing his own defense pro se, given that THAT filing also attempted to cover a filing for a jurisitic person, that, under Colorado state law, could only be done by a properly licensed attorney.
Bottom line I suppose is that Mr. Steiert had multiple transgressions, with a limited — and unreaching — defense. It would have been more interesting perhaps if Mr. Steiert had been a patent agent and had aligned better with the Sperry case.
Which, in a way, brings me around to a past discussion point regarding patent agents.
Under a loose reading of Sperry, a patent agent may be taken as being authorized to set out their own shingle and run a “law firm” in a boutique style (only doing patent prosecution). Yet, such a person may well have ZERO training or even knowledge of legal ethics or contract law or business law, from which, the running of a business of a “law firm” requires, and to a very real degree, may dictate the state of Florida’s concerns IN the Sperry case.
Any patent agents out there with their own shingle care to comment?
If I recall, there were a significant number of ethical questions on the USPTO patent agent examination. A prospective agent must at least have enough training to be able to answer the questions properly, and that’s about as much as you can expect from any attorney passing any bar.
Would love to know more mike – since the MPEP is the only thing tested, where in the MPEP are these ethical questions coming from?
I can guarantee you that it is NOT the same as the Legal Ethics that Attorneys must know.
Do you need any expertise (legal or technical) to draft a patent application these days?
I’m a banker, I have a concept for charging fees to customers using a computer, and determining whether someone is doing something “suspicious.” In some cases, I use remote servers. And hierarchies. And AI. And dynamic processing.
I know that sounds super cool but it’s nothing compared to this card game I invented, which is very practical for exercising your mind and reducing the risk of a slower brain as one enters the twilight years.
The big issue here is : why does Colorado h@ te freedom? Dak is a True American, a pioneer and a forward thinker. The idea that one would need a government license to engage in commerce is one that would have repulsed The Framers.
Does this typical illogical far right wing disdain for expertise and licensing apply to banking? [That worked great for the U.S. in 2008.] How about new airplanes lately?
Sure you can file your own patent application. As far as I am aware you can also remove your own appendix if you want to.
Paul, if you need your appendix removed you need to contact my Super Central Medical Agency. I’ll hook you up with some expert surgeons who will get that bugger out at bargain prices, without the usual price gouging. We can save you money by preemptively removing other troublesome tissues. We also offer amazing enemas while you are unconscious. Be restored today!!
Now where is the fine print toggle on this comment section?
There is no rule that says you can’t file your own patent application for your card game. You are free to prosecute any patent application for which you are a named inventor. You are not free to offer those services to anyone else unless you are a registered patent attorney or patent agent, not even if you are getting real attorneys to do the work.
It’s not that hard to become a patent agent. If you really want to prosecute patents for other people, get a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in a hard science and take the exam.
You’re perfectly free to drive a car on your own land without a driver’s license, but no matter how good a driver you are and how much you value your freedom, nobody wants you driving on the roads without a license, and especially not driving a taxi or bus with other people depending on you.
OT (and only tangentially related), but Standing was a topic in a per curiam Supreme Court decision today vacating a lower court decision in Frank v. Gaos (involving a class action suit and Google).
See link to scotusblog.com for the full write-up.
I remain baffled as to how such proponents cannot see how allowing such a maneuver nullifies the Separation of Powers that underlies the foundation of Article III standing.
There (appears) to be a requirement for actual harm OUTSIDE of the bootstrap mechanism itself.

References: v. 
 §271
 v. 
 v. 
 §1338
 v.