USPTO Chiefs to In-House Counsel: We Want to Hear From You
Lawyers from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office told a group of in-house counsel at the ACC annual meeting that the agency wants to let in-house counsel know how it can assist with their companies' IP-related concerns.
October 29, 2019 at 06:20 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is revving up correspondence with in-house counsel to let them know how the agency can help meet their intellectual property needs, according to a panel of IP regulators at the annual meeting of the Association of Corporate Counsel in Phoenix on Tuesday.
The panel included Mary Boney Denison, the USPTO's commissioner for trademarks, and Molly Kocialski, the director of the USPTO Rocky Mountain Regional Office based in Denver. Denison and Kocialski said the agency wants to increase communications with in-house counsel to promote how they can be of assistance as patent and trademark filings remain high.
"It was part of what we did, but now it's more focused," said Kocialski of the heightened outreach effort to in-house counsel, in an interview. She added regional directors such as herself have proactively reached out more to in-house counsel to offer assistance over the past fiscal year.
Kocialski told the group of about 60 in-house counsel in the audience that if they receive a call or an email from a regional director out of the blue, it most likely means the director wants to connect, such as visit the company, to address any IP-related questions.
"Our main focus, USPTO as a whole, was always on IP attorneys," she said. "We never made the distinction between outside counsel and in-house counsel, but in-house counsel are the decision-makers." Kocialski said the outreach resonates with her as a former in-house lawyer with 15 years of experience; her agency biography lists Oracle America Inc. and Qwest Corp. as previous employers.
According to the 2018 USPTO Performance and Accountability Report, patent filings have decreased by 7,001 filings from 2017 to 2018, with the agency seeing 643,349 filings last year, down from the prior year's 650,350. But Kocialski said the agency is strengthening its focus on communications with lawyers at corporations, because that's where the majority of inventors are.
"Director [Andrei] Iancu wanted to change the IP conversation," Kocialski said. "We don't change the IP conversation in our office. We change it by having it."
Kocialski said she has notified small companies when she would be in their area—her office covers Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming—and enjoyed the visits with these companies where she saw firsthand how their patents and trademarks drive the business.
"The biggest quote that comes out of this is, 'We didn't know the USPTO did this,'" she said.
For trademarks, Denison said she was "specifically asked" to let in-house lawyers know they, too, can submit comments to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, even if their bar associations had submitted their own comments.
"Sometimes the bar groups comment, and you may or may not agree with them, so we would love to hear from you," she told the audience. "Last year, we had put out, I think, twice a request for comments from in-house counsel on a protective order, and we really didn't get very many comments. If you're in-house counsel and you have comments, please feel free to still send them to us because we're still talking about what to do. It's not just that, it's really anything that we're doing we want to hear from you."
In 2018, TTAB's website shows the board received comments from four entities on its standard protective order that would allow in-house counsel access to information and materials designated as confidential, "for attorneys' eyes only," upon a showing and approval by the board. With a split in opinion among the commenters, the board had extended the comment period to June 30, 2019.
Denison, who joined the agency in 2011 and will be retiring Dec. 31, added the USPTO would also like feedback on its surveys from in-house counsel. Over her tenure, trademark filings have increased every year, according to the agency's 2018 report, with 673,233 filings by the Sept. 30 fiscal year-end, up 5% from last year's 638,847 filings.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllShareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Old Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Legal Leaders See AI's Multitude of Uses as Both Blessing and Curse
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 2Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 3US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 4Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 5McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250