Comments on: Patent Office to assess practitioner maintenance fees

By: The USPTO Practitioner Maintenance Fee – Back on the table? | Promote the Progress

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:27:53 +0000

[...] practitioners to pay an annual fee to maintain their license? The practitioner maintenance fee surfaced in November of 2008 when the outgoing Dudas administration pulled it from the shelf – it was published in draft [...]

By: Patent Baristas » Friday IP Round-Up

Patent Baristas » Friday IP Round-Up — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 03:19:57 +0000

[...] Buchanan at Promote the Progress mulls over the US Patent Office Final Rule, which levies a ‘practitioner maintenance fee’ on [...]

By: J. Matthew Buchanan

J. Matthew Buchanan — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:37:49 +0000

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.

By: Kevin S. Brady

Kevin S. Brady — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:12:15 +0000

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.

By: Matt Buchanan

Matt Buchanan — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:49:53 +0000

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.

By: Norton Townsley

Norton Townsley — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:10:08 +0000

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.

By: The practitioner maintenance fee - a necessary development that carries significant concerns

Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:20:50 +0000

[...] maintenance fee” on all patent practitioners registered to practice before it. In my earlier post on the rule, I expressed my initial thought as “it’s about time.” Here’s the [...]

By: The Invent Blog® » Practitioner Maintenance Fees? :: The Patent Blog of Stephen M. Nipper

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:14:29 +0000

[...] Patent Office to assess practitioner maintenance fees. Print This Post | Email This Post | | Subscribe via [...]