Print

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

[vercingetorix]

Harry Moat allows nationals of other countries to take the USPTO exam. They can take our exam but we cannot take theirs. No patent office in the world more thoroughly stacks the deck against its own citizens than does the US patent office.  The road to the land of opportunity is a one way street from outside the US.

When will you stand up for yourself? After your job has been outsourced to China or India, etc etc? 连你会说语言，没办法

 oed@uspto.gov, james.toupin@uspto.gov

Naturally, if you work for the USPTO, you will see this as a non-issue.  Only a US citizen can work for the USPTO.

The lifer at the USPTO, secure in his ivory tower, may imagine that some reciprocal paper arrangement/agreement, makes this a non-issue. He would also believe everyone is gracious on the internet because - at some time or another - everyone has clicked through an agreement that said, "I promise if I cannot say anything nice, I won't say anything at all."

https://offshoring.fuqua.duke.edu/pdfs/gowc_v4.pdf

[Jonathan]

Huh?

There are a little under 40,000 registered practitioners. Admittedly, I don't know how many are non-US citizens that don't live in the US. I think it is most likely less than 10%, probably more like less than 5%. A quick Google search indicates the US population at about 300 million. In other words, we are a very small piece of the pie.

I think there are more important issues to worry about.. say Iraq, healthcare..

[naidu10]

This is an unnecessary controversy. There are reciprocal arrangements in place that take care of the interests of citizens of different countries. For example, even a Canadian Citizen can take up the USPTO exam but will get only limited recognition (can not be full Patent Agent) unless the residency is continuous (possible only if Permanent Resident or Duel Citizen of US and Canada). Also, as soon as the person is no longer resident of USA, even the limited recognition is withdrawn. For example, see the following link for the ruling on this-

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/foia/oed/legal/legal11.pdf

The US Citizens living abroad get similar privileges or are bound by similar constraints. Is it not fair??

[epeeist]

What is the OP referring to?

My understanding was that to become a "full" U.S. patent agent (or patent attorney, if called to a U.S. bar) one had to be (1) a U.S. citizen; or (2) a legal U.S. resident.

With a country with reciprocal privileges (I thought Canada's the only one so far) it's more limited, a Canadian patent agent may become a U.S. patent agent without the U.S. examination but can only represent Canadian applicants, and contrariwise a U.S. patent agent may become a Canadian patent agent but only represent U.S. applicants.

Nothing about any of this seems unfair to me. If you're a citizen or a resident you can become an agent. If you're from a country with reciprocal rights for U.S. patent agents you can become a (limited) agent.

[MYK]

What is the OP referring to?

My understanding was that to become a "full" U.S. patent agent (or patent attorney, if called to a U.S. bar) one had to be (1) a U.S. citizen; or (2) a legal U.S. resident.

I'm assuming he means that we can't even become "limited agents" for foreign PTOs elsewhere in the world.

With a country with reciprocal privileges (I thought Canada's the only one so far) it's more limited, a Canadian patent agent may become a U.S. patent agent without the U.S. examination but can only represent Canadian applicants, and contrariwise a U.S. patent agent may become a Canadian patent agent but only represent U.S. applicants.

I'm not sure that's really true.  I think Canada gives lip service to the idea, but still requires that all correspondence go through a Canadian agent.

[Isaac]

I'm assuming he means that we can't even become "limited agents" for foreign PTOs elsewhere in the world.

Many countries don't have citizenship restrictions.  If you are legal resident and meet the education and training/experience requirements, you get real status and not some limited recognition.  There are tough requirements to becoming a EPO Patent Attorney, but they apply to Europeans and Americans equally.

Perhaps there is a legitimate beef with considering Canada to offer reciprocal privileges, but those issues do not contribute to outsourcing to China or India.  Further giving limited recognition to foreign nationals while they are resident in the US does not contribute to outsourcing.

[vman11]

You are wrong on so many fronts here ...

One gets limited recognition as a foreign national if one can clear the bar. This requires that your job description specifically demand the ability to interact with PTO.

Now, after clearing the bar, one maynot practice if one is not in the US. So, I were back in India visiting, I could not file for clients in the US. That should ease your fears about your job being outsourced.

Given this scenario, when patent drafting jobs are drafted out of the US, who do you think benefits? People in the developing nations/third world who get $2000 - 3000 / yr or people in the US, allowed to legally file the stuff that's been prepared outside of the country.

It would be prudent to understand who's making the money with outsourcing of any kind, and drafting of patents in particular.

I believe you will find in a majority of cases that it will circle back to American greed. And its amusing to read talk from American lawyers complain about greed.

[JimIvey]

I think there are more important issues to worry about.. say Iraq, healthcare..

Actually, given these considerations, I've sometimes lightheartedly wondered about the logistics of practicing before the USPTO from Victoria, British Columbia.  EFS-web makes the logistics of filing from anywhere easy.  But I haven't looked into residence requirements....  ;-)

Regards.

[vercingetorix]

You're two assumptions are reasonable, Epeeist, but incorrect. You made these assumptions perhqaps from a US point of view - openness and fairness. The world is not that way.

Anyone with a science/engineering background from any country in the world can than pass the USPTO exam to become licensed by the OED. These countries will not ever let you become licensed there. Actually, a huge number of patents are written by citizens of countries on the 301 'IP pirate nation' list. All of these nations have over the years received Billions upon Billions private and public funding from the USA.

The USPTO licenses citizens from pirate nations to practice before the USPTO.

Imagine a pirate nation having two hands. In essence, the USPTO licenses the pirate nation to write US patents with their left hand and infringe US patents with their right hand.

China, Taiwan, India, Vietnam are examples. Many Americans-born Chinese could pass the patent exam in Taiwan or China. Same for India, Vietnam, Japan, and the worlds others 200-some countries. But even if you possess all legal, lingual, and technical knowledge and experience imaginable, you will still be discriminated against based on citizenship.

There are approximately 212 nations in the world. Only one, Canada, grants reciprocity to US citizens. 211 other do not.

[vercingetorix]

Vman said

"Now, after clearing the bar, one maynot practice if one is not in the US. So, I were back in India visiting, I could not file for clients in the US. That should ease your fears about your job being outsourced."

Why do you think this is true? Because you read it on a website somewhere? Because some regulation on some piece of paper says so? Can you explain the number of USPTO practitioners with non-US addresses? Walk into any big city in China, India, Mexico, etc and you'll find a company with some engineer who flew to USA sat for the exam and flew back. If she needs a US address for any reason, there is always Mail Boxes Etc. Visit Shenzhen and you'll see a patent writing sweatshop first-hand (for example HongHai 紅海  company has 300 patent writers). They used to make Nike shoes. Now these countries are after the white collars jobs. The US Government is their #1 partner in this effort, doling out licenses to any comer. The US institutional investor is the #1 beneficiary.

James Toubin at the USPTO will hand a license to any person with a degree in science/engineering who can pass the exam.

[vman11]

It seems that your approach to the problem is using a  hatchet where a scapel miight suffice. Or perhaps use a hatchet to cut down an entire tree for a few bad branches.

Unfortunately, abuse  of any system leads to back lash for practitioner following the law. Clearly sweat shops abusing the system in any country cannot be justified and must be stopped. Perhaps with identifying these practicioners  as one finds out about them and then reporting them the PTO. In fact, if you saw any of these guys in China who were practicing illegally (assuming they didn't get citizenship in the US, moved back to china and are legally practicing), I hope youf reported them to the PTO. I understand that you are ethically bound to do so per USPTO guidelines.

The problem with the approach you offer, is that hundreds of thousands of scientists, doctors and engineers who come to this country for a better life and are on the path to citizenship would find that the odds that are stacked up against them just became a little higher.

[Gardnerps]

vercingetorix, I can't believe how wrong a post can be.
The USPTO quite categorically states, that they will not administer the USPTO exam as an academic exercise.  In order to be eligible to sit the exam, you must be eligible to register.  Which means you must be a citizen, a resident or a foreigner ... though only Canadians may be registered as foreigners at the moment.  I suggest you take a stroll through the General Requirements bulletin http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/grb.pdf and see just what it takes to be eligble to sit the exam.   Your statement that "anyone ... from any country in the world ... can pass the USPTO exam" is just blatently wrong.

I can explain the number of USPTO practitioners with non-US addresses for you.  Here in Australia, there are about a dozen of us (worrying numbers, I know).  The majority are expats who moved from the US to Australia and retained their US registration.  These people have had to totally requalify in Australia (a much tougher process than sitting 100 multiple choice questions, I can assure you) and they can only do this under stringent residency requirements ... just like the US.  Myself, I am a dual national, and so I qualify as a US citizen without having lived in the US for any of my working life, but I am a bona fide US citizen, by birthright, just like the rest of you.  So I very much doubt that anyone has, as you say, flown to the US, sat the exam, and flown back unless they were completely eligible by virtue of their US citizenship.

Your beef seems to be with outsourcing of patent drafting.  Might I remind you that anyone, absolutely anyone, may draft a patent.  It requires no technical qualification, nor any registration, anywhere in the world, to draft a patent.  The "checks and balances" come into play with liability.  Only registered practitioners may file in the USPTO, with one exception being the the Applicant/Assignee.  Registered practitioners are liable for the work filed with the USPTO, and thus should be checking any work that they have not themselves drafted.  When the Applicant/Assignee files the patent, they themselves take the liability.   So having an unqualified, unregistered draftsperson in India or China drafting a patent is no different to an unqualified, unregistered technical assistant drafting a patent within a US law firm ... it is exactly the same.  Or what about when I draft an Australian patent for an Australian client ... as a US agent, I take the liability when I file into the US ... or, I could file through a US attorney who would then take the liability.

Maybe your beef is just with those lucky enough to have dual-citizenship.  Yes, an American-born Chinese may be lucky enough to be able to qualify in 2 countries, just like I was. It has nothing to do with Harry Moatz or the USPTO being benevolent to foreign nationals.  It is just the USPTO looking after its citizens and every other country doing the same.  How else do you propose to do it ?  Why, as a US citizen, would I not be allowed to qualify in the US.  Every country I am aware of has a citizenship requirement for registration ... the US included.

[MYK]

I can explain the number of USPTO practitioners with non-US addresses for you.  Here in Australia, there are about a dozen of us (worrying numbers, I know).  The majority are expats who moved from the US to Australia and retained their US registration.  These people have had to totally requalify in Australia (a much tougher process than sitting 100 multiple choice questions, I can assure you) and they can only do this under stringent residency requirements ... just like the US.  Myself, I am a dual national, and so I qualify as a US citizen without having lived in the US for any of my working life, but I am a bona fide US citizen, by birthright, just like the rest of you.  So I very much doubt that anyone has, as you say, flown to the US, sat the exam, and flown back unless they were completely eligible by virtue of their US citizenship.

One doesn't have to qualify in the foreign jurisdiction in order to retain one's U.S. registration.  I know a number of registered practitioners living and working outside the U.S. who aren't practitioners where they are living.  To a large extent, it's a convenience issue for smaller foreign corporations;  if you're a startup tech company in Thailand, would you rather pay a D.C. attorney $500/hr and deal with the timezone shift, language issues, and lack of face-to-face meetings, or would you choose to work with a local law firm which happens to have a U.S. expat patent attorney (who probably works for little more than local rates) on their staff?

However, I can guarantee that you are incorrect about no one having flown here, sat the exam, and flown back.  They are not entitled (or legally allowed) to use their registration number while outside the U.S. (unless they have U.S. citizenship, of course), but it's a useful credential in some countries, such as Japan, and a few international law firms do in fact try to jump through all the hoops to allow their staff to get that credential.  No, they aren't allowed to practice when not in the U.S.  Yes, they can tell a client they've passed, and the client may look upon that favorably.  Is it a help?  (shrugs shoulders)  Who knows?

Your beef seems to be with outsourcing of patent drafting.

Well, and who can blame him?  It does drive down rates and reduce available work.  The Canadian agreement is generally viewed as a bad deal by American practitioners, because Canada isn't honestly granting reciprocity.  If the USPTO were to cave in to businesses and blow that deal wide open, it could really hurt, just as software developers have seen major reductions in salaries and job security as a result of H1-B and offshoring.

However, it appears that the USPTO is moving in the opposite direction:
http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php?topic=9785

Maybe your beef is just with those lucky enough to have dual-citizenship.

I think you're reading waaaay too much into it there.  Have a brewski and throw some shrimps on the barbie, mate.  No worries.

[vercingetorix]

The point is: They can take our exam but we cannot take theirs.

[MelogKnaj]

The point is: They can take our exam but we cannot take theirs.

Why would you want to take their exam though? It just doesn't make sense.