Talk:Patent attorney/Archive 1

Tips for the patent bar

Tips for the patent bar: 1) Take the Kayton course(live or home study)(Patent Resources Group_ and study for at least 10 weeks. If cost is a concern, see if you can buy it used or borrow one. 2) Do 20-30 questions per day 3) Make a master checklist of Kayton notes and 37 C.F.R. 4) Contrary to what most students and patent lawyers believe, one does not have to master the 2000 page agency manual, MPEP. Knowledge of the Kayton notes and 37 CFR is enough. Three sections of the MPEP are helpful, 600,700 and 2100. 5) Practice, Practice and Practice 6) The PTO loves to trip up students with new rules. It is important to check the PTO web site for the issuance of any final rules. Ignore the rules that are merely sent for notice and comment. When I took the Patent Bar, the PTO tested a final rule a mere 30 days before the exam!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.106.157.231 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 9 November 2004 (UTC)‎

For information, this note was considered blatant advertisement by User:216.6.141.51 (see History). --Edcolins 17:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting one particular prep course does seem a lot like advertising. One the other hand many people may be interested in the question how to best prepare for the patent bar exam. Patentbarquestions.com may in that case be a useful website. Good enough to be added to the main article? 68.41.162.8 (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be worth while to have an article on the US patent bar exam itself. Patentbarquestions.com would then make a great addition to that article as long as it strives to be encyclopedic and not overly commercial.--Nowa 00:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean something other than the new (July 11) USPTO registration examination article? Or feel free to add a section there regarding specific types of questions, or whatever. My "favorites" were the 900-word questions with the five 200-word answers, targetting some narrow proviso in some esoteric corner of the regs. Lupinelawyer 13:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Misleading statement, Europe

"In Europe one must be admitted to practice before the European Patent Office as a representative, or in some jurisdictions, before the relevant national Patent Office."

I think this sentence is a little bit misleading.

The title "European Patent Attorney" means nothing else than the fact that somebody is entitled to represent clients before the European Patent Office which is (at least up to now) not in any way legally governed by the European Union (EU).

There are no pan-European legal statutory provisions governing "Patent Attorneys" except the fact that the EU makes sure that respective professional qualifications are mutually recognised to some degree.

Hence, I think that it would be a good idea to change the title of that section into something like: "Professional representation before the European Patent Office - the European Patent Attorney".

Then, different national countries should be listed.

In some countries (I think, for example, Switzerland?) the profession of the Patent Attorney is not regulated.

Other countries, I think of the UK as an example, do allow representation of clients before the national Patent Office without restriction but only CIPA Members may call themselves "(Chartered) Patent Attorneys" after having passed a formal training and an examination.

Finally, in countries like Germany nobody is entitled to represent clients before the German Patent and Trade Mark Office except registered Attorneys-at-Law and, of course, registered Patent Attorneys having passed a certain training and an examination in accordance with applicable German Law.

Axel H Horns horns@ipjur.com

PS: I took the liberty to correct the spelling of my name in the text of the main article. 84.150.243.93 (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your useful input. I reshuffled the section [1] and I hope it is somewhat clearer now. Feel free to amend or suggest amendments which are of course welcome! Cheers. --Edcolins 21:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

US patent attorneys

Do US patent attorneys have to be admitted to a Federal bar in order to provide infringement opinions?--Nowa 04:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Patent jock

Please help us to decide whether to delete Patent jock or not: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patent jock (2nd nomination). --Edcolins 16:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Debate closed. --Edcolins 17:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Raj Abhyanker

I'll stop the revert war about Raj Abhyanker for now because it seems I have reached the threshold. Whatever comes up from the Afd will decide the outcome of this entry in this section. --Edcolins 15:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Passage statistic for patent bar

The passage statistics haven't been released since the PTO moved to the computerized format. Is it safe to assume that the passage rates have remained constant? It's difficult to say, since there was significant fluctutation during the paper years depending on who the top guy at OED was (%30 at its lowest) Perhaps a clarification sentence would be beneficial here. --SampsonSimpson 00:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

10 Performance questions

I was under impression that these questions (inserted into the exam to vette new questions) were only done for a short time (one month or so) after the yearly revision. Is there any documentation that says they're used year-round? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.6.141.51 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Notable patent attorneys and agents

I'm interested to know what criteria are being used here to decide who is 'notable'. This list appears to be a more or less random selection of individuals. Sharon Bowles, for example, appears to be listed only because she is a member of the European Parliament, and if that is indeed the basis I doubt that is enough to be considered 'notable'. On the Wiki page devoted to her, it is stated that she is actually no longer a patent attorney. MichaelMaggs 09:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Michael

That's a very good question. I would say that persons who are or were patent attorney and who are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article may be included (see Wikipedia:Notability (people)). If there are too many names, we could create an article called List of patent attorneys. Of course, this is just a suggestion, you are welcome to propose another criterion. --Edcolins 12:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As regards Sharon Bowles, although she's not acting as an patent attorney, she does act as one of the few voices in favour in the European Parliament (she spent quite some time trying to explain the EPO approach to Computer Implemented Inventions to the opponents of such who didn't seem to want to listen to opposing views) and as such I would say that she was notable in that regard. --Harris 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Edcolins, "persons who are or were patent attorney and who are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article may be included. If there are too many names, we could create an article called List of patent attorneys" --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the two sections about notable patent attorneys into a new article List of patent attorneys and agents. It was becoming quite long IMHO. --Edcolins 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

patent law

does anyon know the average income of a patent attorney? 144.39.4.54 (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

salary.com probably knows. There are different ways a patent attorney might be employed (big law firms, small firms, in-house, government)...are you looking for anything specific? Frankg 21:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

external links

This appears to be one of the more abused pages on wikipedia -- from tips on the patent bar to advertisements for individual "notable patent attorneys and agents." Currently this seems to be taking the form of the blog list in the external links section. From the Manual of Style, WP:EL, blogs are generally to be avoided in the external link section. Without a good argument otherwise, I intend to delete this entire list. Emcee 07:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul Lerner notable?

Not to be too much of a stickler, but I'm not sure that Paul Lerner has the sort of notability we are looking for in this article. He certainly has been a successful patent attorney and licensing agent, but I think we are looking for people who have perhaps a bit more of an unexpected notability. Otherwise, we should probably include all successful patent attorneys. Other opinions? --Nowa 03:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit further, I'm not saying Paul doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article, but I think we are looking for people where people who read the article might say, "Wow, I didn't know he was a patent attorney/agent!" Someone like Calvin & Hobbes dad, for example.--Nowa 03:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we are looking for notable patent attorneys, and as they are notable, we are not only looking for people who wouldn't know about that this person was a patent attorney. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has spoken in favor of Paul Lerner, I'm going to remove him from the notables page. Opposing viewpoints are still welcome.--Nowa 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

He is a notable and respected author in his field. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Also see discussion above at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patent_attorney#Notable_patent_attorneys_and_agents --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Avery Index

The following link was posted in US patent law.

• AveryIndex.com allows you to see which cities and states have the most registered patent agents/attorneys, and which firms have the most in each city

If it belongs anywhere, it belongs here. I don't see what the relevance is, however. Who cares how many patent attorneys/agents there are in a given state? Comments?--Nowa 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very useful. From an academic standpoint, it lets you know in what areas of the country patent work is taking place, i.e. where the technology centers of the country are. In addition, if you click on each state you can see the number of patent attorneys in each city in the state. If you click on a city you can see the firms that have the most attorneys in that city. It's relevant from a where-the-patent-work-is-going-on-in-the-US sense (apropos for Wikipedia). It would also be beneficial for law students trying to figure out where to work.--GreysAnatomy 21:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You make an interesting point. There already is a link to lists of patent attorneys by State, so the Avery index seems a bit redundant. I'm neutral on it, so let's see if anyone seconds your position or has an alternative viewpoint. --Nowa 17:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The existing list looks like a big advertisement and does not group patent attorneys by firm. I think AveryIndex is more useful, less (no) advertising. The existing list is completely 100% redundant of the USPTO search function. I vote that it be removed. --GreysAnatomy 15:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless anyone voices a concern, I'm going to replace the old list with the AveryIndex. Wikipedia should not be about boosting peoples AdWords accounts. --GreysAnatomy 16:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Greys Anatomy has been on a campaign to have the AveryIndex replace another link. One of the reasons given by Greys Anatomy for replacing the previous link was that the previous link contained advertisements. However, GreysAnatomy is not being intellectually honest. The AveryIndex landing page does in fact have Google Adwords advertising. According to GreysAnatomy, “Wikipedia should not be about boosting peoples AdWords accounts.”

Therefore, the AveryIndex link should be removed. If GreysAnatomy is truly unbiased and has no stake in the AveryIndex, then GreysAnatomy should agree with the removal because “Wikipedia should not be about boosting peoples AdWords accounts.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learned Head (talk • contribs) 03:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

LearnedHand - please add your signature when posting on the discussion page. Also, note that the principle objection to the previous list of patent attorneys was that it is entirely redundant of the official functionality provided by the USPTO. There is already a link to the PTO site, and anyone can find a patent attorney or agent using the official site, by city and state.

Second, in Wikipedia's link and spam guidelines, it states that advertising should not be the principle purpose of the externally linked site, and that it should not be dominant on the page. The previous link was mostly advertisements. The AveryIndex has very little advertising, which does not violate Wikipedia policies.

As we have contrasting views here, I suggest a third party weigh in, such as Nowa, on which link should remain.--GreysAnatomy 20:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• According to GreysAnatomy, “The previous link was mostly advertisements.”

GreysAnatomy is incorrect in his/her assessment. The previous link had Google Adwords in the middle of the page, whereas AveryIndex has Google Adwords at the bottom of the page. Thus, the only difference being placement of the Google Adwords. I would not consider this “mostly advertisements.”

According to GreysAnatomy, “The AveryIndex has very little advertising, which does not violate Wikipedia policies.” Again GreysAnatomy is incorrect in his/her assessment. In fact, the AveryIndex has more advertising than the previous link. When you arrive at the landing page of AveryIndex you will find a banner ad for “The Vault”. This banner ad is know as an Affiliate Link and it is offered by a company called Commission Junction. (If you would like to verify please visit http://www.vault.com/admin2/aboutvault/aboutvault_main.jsp?aboutus=11)

Evertime someone clicks on this banner and makes a purchase at The Vault website, the owner of AveryIndex gets paid a commission. No such banner existed on the previous link’s landing page. Clearly, someone is trying to profit from the AveryIndex.

I am not advocating (nor have I ever advocated) for reinstatement of the previous link. I am advocating that we be consistent in the application of our standards. This would mean eliminating the AveryIndex link.

Further, the AveryIndex link provides nothing useful to this discussion page. All other external links are non-commercial governmental authoritative websites. Any information set forth by the AveryIndex is readily available at the existing external links. In addition, a person cannot rely on the information provided by the AveryIndex. The AveryIndex has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page with “Law firm rankings are not intended as legal or career advice.”

Greys Anatomy stated earlier in the discussion that he or she is neutral about having the AveryIndex listed. If this is true, I am not sure why GreysAnatomy is still adamant about keeping the AveryIndex. Notibly, GreysAnatomy never addressed the issue of whether or not GreysAnatomy has a stake in the AveryIndex.

The solution is simple, I propose that neither the previous link nor the AveryIndex be listed on this discussion page. It is creating to much conflict. We must protect Wikipedia from spamming and hollow commercial websites. Learned Head 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)LearnedHead (not LearnedHand)

LearnedHead, my apologies. I saw it as LearnedHand. Anyway, I'm not advocating for the link. I am advocating for it over the previous link. And, I found the resource invaluable. I am a law student looking for work and it's very difficult to find what firms are the big players in a market. The USPTO site didn't provide any information, the previous link didn't help, but this solved the problem. I got a job. So, honestly, yes, I'm a fan. It's useful and the advertising conforms to prominence standards. But, whatever. I think you and I are the only two with an opinion on this. --GreysAnatomy 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Since GreysAnatomy is not advocating for the averyindex listing anymore, then there is no conflict. Therefore, to uphold the standards of Wikipedia, I will be removing the averyindex link.Learned Head 04:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, agree with removal of the link. -- Satori Son 06:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

California is the technological center of the US

GreysAnatomy, I appreciate your contribution to the article regarding the speculation that the high number of patent attorneys/agents in California is an indication that Calfornia is the technological center of the US, but we have to be a bit careful about putting speculation in a Wikipedia article. Our mission is to summarize facts and the authoritative work of others. If you can find an authoritative study where the number of patent attorneys/agents in a given geographic region is related to the innovation output of said region, then perhaps it would be worth describing the results of said study it in a short section of this article with the appropriate citation. (Oh and by the way, my great state of Connecticut has the highest rate of patented inventors per capita of any State, thus proving that we are the smartest State in the Union. Wouldn't you agree?  :-) --Nowa 17:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that California has far more patent attorneys than any other state. That's the fact. I agree that whether this makes it the technological center of the US is speculation, but, that technology and patent law go hand in hand is not speculation and it certainly indicates California as a technology rich area. Your per capita figures on Connecticut are wrong, unfortunately [2]. Sorry! --GreysAnatomy 15:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops you are right. It looks like Delaware just edged us out of #1. [3]--Nowa 02:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We're talking apples and oranges. That's patents issued per capita, not patent attorneys per capita, which is more germaine to this page. In patent attorneys per capita, DE, VA, MA, CT, and MN are ahead of CA.--GreysAnatomy 16:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, I was just looking for a patent statistic that CT was #1 in.--Nowa 18:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:) At least you're ahead of CA either way.--GreysAnatomy 16:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul Lerner

I have nominated the article about Paul Lerner for deletion. If you want to participate to the debate, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lerner. --Edcolins 13:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Albert Einstein

The wikipedia article on Albert Einstein says he was a patent examiner. Maybe he should be included in the list of notables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marca17 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This article is about patent attorney. For patent examiner, see the article patent examiner, where you will find an entry referring to Albert Einstein. Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Patent attorney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090314175037/http://wwwc.moex.gov.tw:80/ct.asp?xItem=13692&ctNode=2136 to http://wwwc.moex.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=13692&ctNode=2136

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Patent attorney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140201141039/http://www.msp.ua/On-approvement-of-the-Regulation-on-the-Intellectual-Property-Representatives.pdf to http://www.msp.ua/On-approvement-of-the-Regulation-on-the-Intellectual-Property-Representatives.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Patent agent redirect

Why does "patent agent" redirect to "patent attorney"? They are not the same thing. Aluf Timna (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. In my understanding, the designations are interchangeable in some jurisdictions, while different in others. I would suggest explaining the differences in the "patent attorney" article. Since the designations are very similar, I would nevertheless tend to keep a single article for both concepts. --Edcolins (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)