Print

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

[fable]

Passed the exam several months ago, got flagged for moral character based on, beleive it or not, selling my study materials.  (original manufacturer of said materials, which I purchased used, faxed USPTO a copy of my advertisment,  accusing me of copyright infringement, and misrepresenting the materials age).  The copyright business is complete crap, but since I bought the materials used, I could have been decieved as to their age.  

I responded to USTPO OED about 2 weeks ago, and got my postcard back today, but no word.

Any idea how long OED takes to resolve something like this?

How freaked out should I be?

[SciGuy]

Just curious...why did you fax them the advertisement?  Did they find out about it on their own?  I assumed you could resell study material just as you could resell a book or anything else just as long as you didn't duplicate it.

[patento]

how did the manufacturer know your name?

Passed the exam several months ago, got flagged for moral character based on, beleive it or not, selling my study materials.  (original manufacturer of said materials, which I purchased used, faxed USPTO a copy of my advertisment,  accusing me of copyright infringement, and misrepresenting the materials age).  The copyright business is complete crap, but since I bought the materials used, I could have been decieved as to their age.  

I responded to USTPO OED about 2 weeks ago, and got my postcard back today, but no word.

Any idea how long OED takes to resolve something like this?

How freaked out should I be?

[Isaac]

I think the OP said that the course vendor did the faxing.  

Some bar study vendors do indicate that their materials are licensed and that resale is prohibited.   I'm not sure whether the license limitation is enforceale, but I once had a forum operator cite such a provision as his reason for deleting my posts when I attempted to purchase a used course some time back.

I would also expect that the vintage of the course materials could be easily checked.   I'm not sure that saying you were tricked first is going to be much of a defense.

I'd be concerned.  

[fable]

A. Umm, original age give or take about 6 months would be impossible to tell.  I gave the only absolute information I had about the age of the materials (version of the MPEP).  

B. As I didn't purchase the materials new, I'm pretty confident in the copyright issue.  That is, I have a completely supportable legal argument there.  I have to imagine that any legal argument supportable by U.S. law should be acceptable to the OED.

C. The USPTO sent a copy of the fax they recieved, which accused me a variety of ills besides the age and copyright issue.  (Like volunteering to discuss exam questions).  Apparently OED didn't care about those though, and only asked me to respond to the copyright and age issues.

[Isaac]

A. Umm, original age give or take about 6 months would be impossible to tell.  I gave the only absolute information I had about the age of the materials (version of the MPEP).  

I can dig it.  Some of the material might have copyright dates on the notices that might be revealing, but that would not allow you to tell within 6 months.

B. As I didn't purchase the materials new, I'm pretty confident in the copyright issue.  That is, I have a completely supportable legal argument there.  I have to imagine that any legal argument supportable by U.S. law should be acceptable to the OED.

Would OED's standard be a supportable argument or an argument they would agree with?

Beyond the question of law, some people have particular ideas about copyright, licensing etc. and find the idea that of not following the dictates of a license abhorent regardless of enforceability.   I have no idea how the PTO would react to not following a licence whose enforceability is at least questionable.  

I suspect that when you get your certificate a letter describing the results of the PTOs investigation will accompany it.

I'm not going to ask which course vendor is involved, and I don't suggest you reveal that info, but I sure am curious.

[fable]

I'd love to know what standard OED would use, that's part of the reason I posted this.  The other, and more pressing reason is to find out how long a character decision usually takes.

I noticed that some of the FOIA moral decisions on the OED website mention letters of reference.  Should I get some?  Should I wait and only do that if I have to appeal to the director?

At least until this is resolved, I plan on being as vague as possible about what materials were involved.  

[RandyJohnsonrod]

You are totally @ucked.
You knew better and you did it anyway.
Have a good life flipping pancakes.

[BTP]

You are totally @ucked.
You knew better and you did it anyway.
Have a good life flipping pancakes.

Oh, come now.  The OP has cause to be concerned, but the vendor's copyright claim on a resale of a resale may be charitably described as suspect.  The lack of privity between the vendor and the OP is striking.

I'd have to see the date claims and the MPEP involved to evaluate validity, but the explanation sounds reasonable.

[Isaac]

Oh, come now.  The OP has cause to be concerned, but the vendor's copyright claim on a resale of a resale may be charitably described as suspect.  The lack of privity between the vendor and the OP is striking.

I'd have to see the date claims and the MPEP involved to evaluate validity, but the explanation sounds reasonable.

I don't think a lack of privity argument holds water.  In theory, the original owner had no authority to make the transfer.  But in any event the original owner could not provide any more rights to a third party than he himself received.

OTOH, something less than an air tight defense to copyright infringement might be enough to address character and fitness issues.

[mamadoc]

Caveat:  I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.  I am just sharing my "law-layperson's" common sense take on this.

1. What you describe amounts to a contractual dispute between you and the Course Vendor (CV).  

2. Unless and until the CV prevails in a cause of action against you for copyright infringement, the USPTO has no reasonable basis to assume that the CV would win in such an action.

3. If the USPTO deprives you of your right to earn a living prosecuting patents, based on anything less than a full evidentiary hearing (and arguably a jury trial in an action by CV against you), then the USPTO would be abridging your Constitutional right to Due Process.  

4. As a matter of public policy, the USPTO should not interfere in private party contract disputes by undertaking to resolve them in favor of one party (here, CV) or the other.

Bottom line is that I do not see how you could be deprived of a license to prosecute patents, for which you are otherwise qualified, based on this kind of allegation.

Furthermore, after you prevail, I respectfully suggest that you consider: [1] Suing the person(s) and/or firm for tortious interference with trade or business and/or defamation; [2] If the person who filed the complaint with the USPTO and/or the decision-maker in the firm who authorized it is an Attorney, filing a complaint with the Bar(s) of the State(s) in which they are licensed to practice.  

Unless, of course, the materials as conveyed to you were clearly marked "Non-Transferable Personal License -- Transfer by Sale, Gift, or Other Means Prohibited Under Terms Of Use Agreement" or something like that.  (In which case you are getting what you deserve...)

[Isaac]

3. If the USPTO deprives you of your right to earn a living prosecuting patents, based on anything less than a full evidentiary hearing (and arguably a jury trial in an action by CV against you), then the USPTO would be abridging your Constitutional right to Due Process.

I think this is particularly bad advice.   The PTO does not need to wait for an adjudication in court of the dispute with CV.  The PTO has a process for investigating character and fitness complaints, and for considering evidence provided by the applicant rebutting or explaining the situation.  Assuming that normal proceedures are followed, a Due Process argument is unlikely to be successful.

4. As a matter of public policy, the USPTO should not interfere in private party contract disputes by undertaking to resolve them in favor of one party (here, CV) or the other.

The USPTO would not be interfering in a contract dispute.  They would be assessing whether your role in the dispute indicated bad character.

There is no allegation that the material furnished to the USPTO by the CV was false or misleading in any way, and the USPTO does actively solicit comments from the public.   I would suggest forgetting the defamation, tortious interference stuff.

[bee]

I'd ask the OED for the contact info of the person who submitted the materials and follow up with a tortious interference issue.

Did I miss a fair use exception to copyright?  Did I miss a statute of limitations as to whether the materials you used were beyond a tort or copyright suit from the "creator?"  Why are they interfering with OED and not suing you in state/fed court?  
If you bought the materials in bona fide good faith and paid value for them, I'd join the person you bought them from and bring a tortious action against the person/group accusing you.  But, that is just me...and I only know the facts that you've posted.
OED will do whatever they are going to do based on however they think.  They control who gets admitted to the patent bar and who doesn't.  You should be 100% honest and straight forward with them...always.  But, I'd go to the mat with the jokers who are griping to OED, but not suing you for civil rememdies.  What does that say about them or their case against you?
They can bitch, but their bitching won't stand up in court?

[dummy]

Hey Fable - did they contact you regarding the red flag during or after the registration notice period?

I wish you well with your registration.

[daven]

How did they get your name in the first place?  Did you sell them on ebay?  Ebay wouldn't disclose your name.  Maybe they were the winning bidder..  What company is it, so I can avoid them?