USPTO Sued Over "Unqualified Appointment"

Techdirt is reporting that a small group of patent lawyers and investors are suing the US Secretary of Commerce in order to prevent the appointment of Margaret Peterlin to Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office. "According to the suit, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Congress amended the Patent Act in 1999 to require that the Director and Deputy Director of the USPTO each have "professional experience and background in patent or trademark law." Peterlin's appointment, announced May 8, violates the statute because she "lacks the requisite professional experience and background," the suit said. [...] They are asking the court to order Gutierrez to dismiss Peterlin immediately and establish rules to assess what qualifies as a professional background and experience in patent or trademark law. They also want the court to order Gutierrez to appoint a replacement for Peterlin who fulfills those requirements."

hmm

[nomadic]

They are asking the court to order Gutierrez to dismiss Peterlin immediately and establish rules to assess what qualifies as a professional background and experience in patent or trademark law.

It would have been so much easier if Congress had just made the law say "must have been a registered U.S. patent attorney for at least 5 years before appointment."

..a tinfoil hat moment..

[bombastinator]

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist here, why are they doing this?

Lawsuits are soul sucking, time consuming, and really really expensive. I could see how some legal body or activist group may be interested for idealistic reasons, but investors?

If they are putting the big dollars in they will be wanting the big dollars out again. That's what investors do. The question is why and how. What has either this law or woman woman done or not done to engender this kind of hostility?

curiouser and curioser

Tell me I'm misreading the article

[noiseusse]

I don't get it. They want Peterlin dismissed because she doesn't meet criteria that is to be determined after her dismissal?

Re:no standing

[delong]

That's right. They represent people who may be harmed, they have no injury. What's next? Plaintiffs lawyers have standing to sue because their clients are harmed?

really?

[mojoNYC]

From the plaintiff's letter to the judge: While we appreciate Ms. Peterlin's accomplishments, we are nonetheless surprised that her biography does not include any apparent references to professional activity concerning patents or trademarks, in either a practical, corporate, academic, or publishing capacity. http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/06/letter-questions -credentials-of.html [blogspot.com] Also, given the Cheney/Bush regime's attempts to politicize all levels of our government, usually at the expense of competency, *every one* of their appointments should be viewed with extreme jaundice. See Gonzalez, Alberto, amongst many others.

Re:Huh?

[arth1]

We don't hold them accountable because that would be unconstitutional. :-)

For good reason too -- fear of repercussions from the executive and judicial branches must not be allowed to cripple congress. Imagine what would have happened if certain presidents or had the power to fire or imprison congressmen for "misconduct".

Yes, there's a bad side to the immunity, but that's a small price to pay for the representatives being able to speak and vote freely.