November 17, 2008

Patent Office to assess practitioner maintenance fees

The United States Patent and Trademark Office today published a Final Rule in the Federal Register that levies a ‘practitioner maintenance fee’ on attorneys and agents recognized to practice before it in patent cases.  The new rule requires all registered patent practitioners to pay an annual fee to maintain their professional association with the agency.

You can view and/or download a .pdf of the rule here.

The rule will become effective on December 17, 2008.  The Office will provide “adequate notice” to practitioners in advance of the due date.  The fee for maintaining active status is, currently, $118.  The fee for voluntary, inactive status (for “practitioners who have retired or are unable to continue their practice, but still desire to maintain a recognized professional association with the USPTO”) is, currently, $25.

I’ll write more about the rule once I have time to ponder it a bit more, but my initial thought is this: it’s about time.

Lest anyone think the monies collected by the new Rule will be applied to the issue/maintenance fee shortfall, the Office ensures the bar that they will be used “to enable the Office to maintain a roster of registered practitioners and, consequently, better protect the public from unqualified practitioners.”

I do have two questions following my brief review of the rule

  • could the Office have picked a worse name for this new fee?  ”The Practitioner Maintenenace Fee?”  Seriously.  How about “Annual dues?”
  • Why did it take five years to take this rule from draft (published on December 12, 2003) to final (published today)?

Hat tip to the Filewrapper blog.

Posted in regulation on November 17, 2008
tags: ,
permalink

Discussion

There are 7 responses to this post, including 4 comments, 3 pings, 0 tweetbacks, and 0 related tweets.

You can join the discussion by leaving a comment using the form at the bottom of the page or by pinging the URL using your own site.

Click here to add a tweetback to this post using Twitter.

If you know of a tweet that provides background content, a different viewpoint, or other relevant information, please send me the tweet ID.

Comments

  • Norton Townsley
    # posted on 11.18.08 at 2:10 pm

    It is about time. I don’t know why they did not do this years ago. And, I hate to say it, they should require some CLE, too. Although it should be minimal and overlap with state CLE so that it is not too burdensome.

  • Matt Buchanan
    # posted on 11.18.08 at 2:49 pm

    Norton -

    Thanks for the comment. I agree with you on the CLE point as well, but feel subject matter overlap should be avoided. I guess in an ideal world, patent practitioners could take patent law CLE that satisfied their state bar requirements, if they have any.

    Thanks again for the comment.

  • Kevin S. Brady
    # posted on 11.19.08 at 3:12 pm

    Although I haven’t worked with patents in the past few years, I’ll stay current and pay the dues. Because…you just never know.

    I agree with the fees, and as noted by others, think it’s about time they started to assess them. Every other bar requires it.

    Not convinced a CLE requirement would provide any additional benefit - except to the people who make money presenting CLEs. Anyone who is serious about patent law is likely staying up to speed via state/local IP law associations, state bar CLEs, networking, etc. A second layer of CLE requirements seems redundant.

    Cheers.

  • J. Matthew Buchanan
    # posted on 11.19.08 at 5:37 pm

    Thanks for the comment Kevin. I’ve talked to several practitioners over the last two days about the new fee. I’m not surprised to learn that most feel it is something they should pay. Some even agree with me and feel we should have been paying it since being admitted.

Pings

Tweetbacks

There are no tweetbacks to this post.

Other relevant tweets

I haven't added any other tweets to this post.

Leave a comment

(required)

(required)