Print

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

[vercingetorix]

Of the responses which disagree with the original post, one changes the subject - to avoid discussing the unfair rule he is insulated from. This appears to be raised by an employee of the USPTO (that will hire only US citizens). Another pretends not to understand the point. This response seems to be raised by a beneficiary of the unfairness(e.g. one who passed the USPTO exam but whose country does not grant to US citizens the right it grants to him).

The point is fairness. Maybe I want the right to practice in another country. And maybe I don't. What I actually choose is not the point. Freedom to choose is. The freedom to do choose should be mine because my country (USA) grants that right to that country.

Should you give a right to a foreign country’s citizen, if the foreign country will not give the right to you?

What right? The right to travel, the right to work, the right to walk down the street, while simultaneously humming a tune and chewing bubble gum -  any right.

[Upnorthguy]

As McCain mentioned yesterday, life ain't fair.  Of course, what is "fair" is totally relative...

Does the US give rights to non-citizens that are not reciprocated?  Yes. 
Ask people in China to check out the Amnesty International website.  Pick a country that doesn't allow women to vote.   You get the idea.
I say these positions by the US are fair.

I say it is fair that we, the US of A, give a right to a foreign country's citizen even if they won't give the right to us.

If your definition of fair does not match with the current situation (and it appears that it doesn't), you can do one of two things:
-Lobby to have the US change the laws/regs that control who can practice before the USPTO
-Lobby to have your favorite foreign countries that don't allow US citizens to practice patent law change their rules/regs

Oh, I guess there is a third option:
-you could post about your dislike with the status quo on an IP forum board and see what kind of discussion is generated

[Isaac]

What right? The right to travel, the right to work, the right to walk down the street, while simultaneously humming a tune and chewing bubble gum -  any right.

Including those rights the foreign country denies to its own citizens such as the right to free speech, to trial by jury, freedom of religion, avoiding self incrimination etc?

By extending your argument to include all rights it becomes fairly clear that the fairness standard you advocate is suspect, and would require us in some cases to treat foreigners by standards we would consider inhumane and unconstitutional.  It makes a good sound bite, but it is not in all cases, sound policy.  For example, how should we treat immigrants to whom we grant political asylum.  Further, if an immigrant becomes a legal permanent resident should we still continue to set policy based on how a US citizen would be treated in a like situation in the foreign country.  Would you be willing to loosen up US immigration policy based on what some other country does?

In any event Moatz is simpy following US immigration policy by allowing immigrants (for example, those on H1B visas) to take the patent exam.  If the real problem is that people from certain foreign countries shouldn't be able to get H1 status to practice patent law, I think the place to start implementing the policy would be somewhere other than the patent office.

[MYK]

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.

1) Apparently depends on the country/continent, see Isaac's point about the EPO;  also depends on the person, e.g., the Aussie dual-citizen.  (It looks like I could sit for the EPO exam if I can get a work visa, the initial hire and the mandatory OJT!  Now to hit Expedia for a ticket to Paris. . . .)

2) What if you're working "over there" as a U.S. practitioner, and would like to be able to handle work locally without relying on your colleagues?  Language issues can pose substantive problems, but legal issues like right-to-work aren't based on those, and not every place is friendly.  India in particular is very hostile to foreign lawyers trying to do anything, even for multinationals trying to do business there;  The Economist had an article on problems caused by this a few months ago.

[Hank66]

I wanted to chime in as there have been some ridiculous comments and clearly incorrect information.

First, the issue with reciprocal rights does not mean that the US would be allowed to discriminate based on nationality (or ethnicity etc). The original poster clearly wants the US to discriminate based on nationality.

Legal residents (green card holders, or people with work visa identifying they are doing patent work) can become patent agents or patent attorneys here. I agree that it is up to Congress to decide if work visas should be given to foreigners in this area (in practice this may be difficult, as many are not H1-visa holders but instead may be e.g. internal transfers inside a company from one country to US using different visas etc). It is not up to USPTO to start discriminating based on nationality (in fact, supreme court struck down the previous state bar requirements of US citizenship).

I also wanted to correct Isaac:
"There are tough requirements to becoming a EPO Patent Attorney, but they apply to Europeans and Americans equally."

This is not true. Only Europeans (nationals of member states of European Patent Office) can become European Patent Attorneys. Non-citizens are not allowed. On the other hand, if you are a foreigner and have been living in a EPO country for some time and fulfill the formalities (degree, 3 years of OJT under qualified European Patent Attorney etc), then the president of EPO can make an exception and allow you to take the exam. I don't know how common this is.

Each EPO country has different requirements (I think most require citizenship) if you want to practice as a local patent agent in Europe. European Patent Attorney status allows you to practice before EPO, but local country agent/attorney status are still needed to practice before national patent offices. Of course, you don't necessarily need both.

For non-Europeans, the biggest hurdle is probably the language. At least for European Patent Attorney tests you need to to understand two languages (e.g. english and german/french) and also the exam is much more difficult than patent bar here (I think pass rate is around 15%).

[promeloni]

I realize I might be late to this thread. I just want to post the relevant section of the Canadian Patent Rules:

"14. (1) The Commissioner shall enter on the register of patent agents, on payment of the fee set out in item 33 of Schedule II, the name of

...
(b) any resident of a country other than Canada who is registered and in good standing with the patent office of that country or with a regional patent office for that country,
..."

Now the catch is you have to reside in Canada:

"21. (1) Every patent agent who does not reside in Canada and who is appointed as the patent agent for an applicant in respect of an applicaiton shall appoint as the associate patent agent in respect of the application a patent agent who resides in Canada."

[MYK]

This is not true. Only Europeans (nationals of member states of European Patent Office) can become European Patent Attorneys. Non-citizens are not allowed. On the other hand, if you are a foreigner and have been living in a EPO country for some time and fulfill the formalities (degree, 3 years of OJT under qualified European Patent Attorney etc), then the president of EPO can make an exception and allow you to take the exam. I don't know how common this is.

Each EPO country has different requirements (I think most require citizenship) if you want to practice as a local patent agent in Europe. European Patent Attorney status allows you to practice before EPO, but local country agent/attorney status are still needed to practice before national patent offices. Of course, you don't necessarily need both.

Another dream dead.     

[Gardnerps]

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

That may be the point, but the point is wrong.
US citizens and US residents can take the US exam.
EU citizens and EU residents can take the EU exam
Australian citizens and Australian residents can take the Australian exam.
Canadian citizens and Canadian residents can take the Canadian exam

... can you see the common theme developing ....  there is no unfairness. 

[MYK]

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

That may be the point, but the point is wrong.
US citizens and US residents can take the US exam.
EU citizens and EU residents can take the EU exam
Australian citizens and Australian residents can take the Australian exam.
Canadian citizens and Canadian residents can take the Canadian exam

... can you see the common theme developing ....  there is no unfairness. 

Not in evidence so far.  The U.S. automatically gives permanent residents the right to take the exam as long as they can an demonstrate employment need for it, and even allows nonimmigrants under the same circumstances.  According to the discussion so far (see four posts above yours), the EPO might, as an exception, allow a permanent resident to take the exam.  I don't believe we've seen a discussion of the rules for Oz yet.

(I'd be interested in Oz's rules for resident noncitizens, as I've always had a fascination with the platypus.  Also, kangaroo is quite tasty.  Of course, it's nearly impossible to learn to speak Australianese unless one was born there, although I believe I've made some inroads already.  For example, I could have written that "kangaroo's bonzo tucker, mate!")

[majidpucit123]

In order to be registered as a patent agent or patent attorney in the United States, one must pass the United States Patent and Trademark Office registration examination, officially called the Examination for Registration to Practice in Patent Cases Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Non-U.S. citizens wishing to practice before the USPTO in their own country may also register by meeting the same requirements if the individual is registered to practice before the patent office in their country of residence AND if their country has a reciprocity agreement with the U.S. Currently, only one country, Canada, has such an agreement. Such registration is granted for the limited purpose of representing patent applicants from the individual's country of residence before the USPTO. Non-U.S. citizens legally residing in the United States, having a valid non immigrant work visa, and already employed by a patent firm in a patent prosecution role (often referred to as a "technical specialist") may take the exam in order to gain limited recognition to act as a patent agent for applications being handled through their employer. This law on Aliens, 37 C.F.R. 11.6(c), is not enforced by the USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED). However, employees of the USPTO must be US citizens and this is verified in a background check; patent agents who want to work for the USPTO must first become U.S. citizens