<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">There's more than meets the eye here. See the link below for "History, Legislation & Reports" from U.S. Office of Personnel Management re: the Federal telework Act. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">Born of the invention of enabling technology. Note long History, rationale and benefits sought, e.g., cost cutting..</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">Congressional action required to negate legislation which is the apparent intent of the Executive Order?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">And, assuming there are grounds to challenge the Executive Order, who could/would bring such an action? </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">Cat Goe, TM Paralegal</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><a href="https://www.opm.gov/telework/history-legislation-reports/">https://www.opm.gov/telework/history-legislation-reports/</a> </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">---------- Forwarded message ---------<br>From: <strong class="gmail_sendername" dir="auto">Dan Feigelson via E-trademarks</strong> <span dir="auto"><<a href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a>></span><br>Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 3:08\u202fPM<br>Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] PTO abandoning remote work?<br>To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <<a href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a>><br>Cc: Dan Feigelson <<a href="mailto:djf@iliplaw.com">djf@iliplaw.com</a>><br></div><br><br><img width="1" height="1" src="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/op/P6rss8ahk69XOwIkvw32hawAuDty7812475zVlfSCYDZgK8iJQf13FnaU2UFIbT_C_ZlFHwuLj-9fXH8DUXJY609_67a5zdbJHmxMX2GIsWU2VlO9fh_xFs1w92xfS7Ko5fftOrMX7fcLOtYc-rHesItPcazgtYVzbi5a7fGjghZjjvMTrBDoHWbP2fXRxW80q8IlpwTxZS1wXO5Fo5-9tyN2BKhORp5sg"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>I don't do TM work (not sure how I got on this list), but I can say that from the patent side, they completely screwed up with the offices in Detroit, Denver and San Jose.</div><div><br></div><div>What they SHOULD have done, and SHOULD do, is assign the entirety of each art unit to one of their physical offices, and require employees to physically show up for work. It would vastly improve examination quality. For example, all of group 1600 (which examines inter alia pharmaceuticals) should be physically in the same office. I don't care if it's Alexandria or one of the other three, but put them all in one physical office. It would improve training, and it would allow for better retention of institutional memory, which would lead to more uniform and better examination. <br></div><div><br></div><div>That's not what they did, and I doubt that's what they're going to do. I suspect the bean counters look only at the cost of rent of physical office space, and not at the cost to the public of poor patent examination (a cost which is difficult to quantify in any event). And as mentioned earlier in this thread, there's the union, which opposes any changes, and people who don't want to move, which is understandable in the short-term, but not something the PTO should be factoring in. (It's great to be a monopoly and not have to worry about whether or not you're giving the public you serve the best possible service.) <br></div><div><br></div><div>No idea if the same can be said for TM examination. <br></div><div><br></div>Dan<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 9:25\u202fPM Edward Timberlake via E-trademarks <<a href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">Also, for anybody not familiar:</div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">The word "telework" perhaps tends to bring to mind a situation where there's a physical building that can house all of the employees but where (at least some of) the employees may have the option of working from elsewhere. </div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">The USPTO has no such building. </div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">If all of the employees were required physically to come to Alexandria, there'd be nowhere for (most of) them to work. </div><br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div></div><br>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div>
-- <br>
E-trademarks mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</div></div>