Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fb]

If you have already hired counsel for one non-provisional filing, and you have some other less-priority inventions that you are going to file pro-se, how much wording of the counsel's boilerplate draft is it ok to use?

[NJ Patent1]

fb:  I take the view that, once the check clears, my words are bought and paid for and are the property of the client to use for any lawful purpose.  I recognize that certain "hoops" have to be jumped-through for a work to be a statutory "work for hire".  But let's see if I can get this straight.  (C) exists from moment of fixing in a tangible medium of expression from which the "ceative work" can be percieved.  I can incorporate by reference from a published US application.  The Office can require me to amend to expressly recite, in haec verba, bleeding chunks from the incorporated published application - somebody else's fixed creatrive work.  When my app/patent publishes, have I not violated (C) in the original work?  Very strange result.  Going back to my opening sentences, even if the "hoops" are not jumped through  it appears to me, based on the atty - clent relationship, the paid for words belong to the payor client as a "work for hire" (maybe the engagemebnt letter is a sufficient writing/), the 'creative expression" is part of the "file" that many state RPCs acknowledge as the property of the client (although I can keep a copy in case of a malpractice suit).   

[fb]

How about in a non-legal sense, i.e., tact?

[NJ Patent1]

fb:  Sorry, I don't unerstand ur post.  IMHO, the document you paid for is yours, lock, stock, and barrel.  Tact? u mean "strategy"?  Again IMHO U paid for that too.  Check the rules of professional conduct in your state re; who "owns" documents drafted by an atorney. 

[Bing[bot]63]

thanks , i know about that!

_______________________