[E-trademarks] PTO abandoning remote work? Note Federal telework Act

Tue Jan 21 21:54:24 UTC 2025

In reading the background of the applicable executive orders it does not appear that USPTO is anywhere near the top of the list of departments, bureaus being targeted to (perhaps) drive career staff out.  The USPTO’s mission does not seem to conflict with the administration’s priorities in the way that, say, HUD, HHS, parts of Interior, EPA, CIA, etc. etc. etc. do.  

The language of the EO leaves a big loophole for selective application.  

From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Don Stout via E-trademarks
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 4:41 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Don Stout <dstout at patlawyers.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] PTO abandoning remote work? Note Federal telework Act

What is refreshing about this listserve is the collegiality and advice we share concerning trademark prosecution matters, without getting into the mud of national politics.  I ask that we stay in the trademark lane and keep things as politics-free as possible.

Thanks.

Best Regards,

Don Stout

Stout, Uxa & Buyan, LLP

23172 Plaza Pointe Drive, Suite 110

Laguna Hills, CA  92653

949-450-1750

949-450-1764 fax

Email: dstout at patlawyers.com <mailto:dstout at patlawyers.com> 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: 

This message and/or attachment(s) contains information which may be confidential and privileged.  Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message.  If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply email.  Thank you. 

From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com <mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> > On Behalf Of Laura Geyer via E-trademarks
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 1:31 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> >
Cc: Laura Geyer <lgeyer at ndgallilaw.com <mailto:lgeyer at ndgallilaw.com> >
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] PTO abandoning remote work? Note Federal telework Act

Kevin:

That one, the briefs and amici were already ready to go before the election. I’ve linked the ACLU brief here, and also there are 18 state attys general who brought suit separately, along with San Francisco and the District of Colombia.

Ending birthright citizenship cannot be done by EO.  That at least is straightforward. It has to be done by Amendment to the Constitution. 

https://www.aclu.org/cases/new-hampshire-indonesian-community-support-v-donald-j-trump?document=Complaint

L

Laura Talley Geyer | Of Counsel 

ND Galli Law LLC

1200 G Street, N.W., Ste 800

Washington, DC 20005

Tel: (202) 599-9019 (direct)

https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/

https://ndgallilaw.com/

From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com <mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> > On Behalf Of Kevin Grierson via E-trademarks
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 4:17 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> >
Cc: Kevin Grierson <kgrierson at cm.law <mailto:kgrierson at cm.law> >
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] PTO abandoning remote work? Note Federal telework Act

EXTERNAL EMAIL

The current administration has issued an executive order that appears to directly contradict the 14th amendment’s birthright citizenship clause, so I don’t think the fact that the PTO’s telework system is enabled by legislation is going to stop them.  That said, I would guess that either the union or an individual who was told they couldn’t telework any more would have standing to sue to stop the order, but given the squishiness of the actual order, I’m not sure it will be actionable until someone is told they can’t work from home any more.

Kevin Grierson

|

Partner

 <https://www.cm.law/> 

   <tel:757-726-7799> 757-726-7799

   <fax:866-521-5663> 866-521-5663

   <mailto:kgrierson at cm.law> kgrierson at cm.law

 <https://www.cm.law/cm-law-formerly-culhane-meadows-launches-second-decade-with-fresh-name-and-modern-brand/> Please note: Culhane Meadows is now CM Law

From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com <mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> > On Behalf Of Catherine Goe via E-trademarks
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 3:52 PM
To: for trademark practitioners <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> >
Cc: Catherine Goe <goecat at gmail.com <mailto:goecat at gmail.com> >
Subject: [E-trademarks] PTO abandoning remote work? Note Federal telework Act

EXTERNAL EMAIL

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. 

Born of the invention of enabling technology.  Note long History, rationale and benefits sought, e.g., cost cutting..

Congressional action required to negate legislation which is the apparent intent of the Executive Order?

And, assuming there are grounds to challenge the Executive Order, who could/would bring such an action?  

Cat Goe, TM Paralegal

https://www.opm.gov/telework/history-legislation-reports/ 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dan Feigelson via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] PTO abandoning remote work?
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> >
Cc: Dan Feigelson <djf at iliplaw.com <mailto:djf at iliplaw.com> >

  <https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/op/P6rss8ahk69XOwIkvw32hawAuDty7812475zVlfSCYDZgK8iJQf13FnaU2UFIbT_C_ZlFHwuLj-9fXH8DUXJY609_67a5zdbJHmxMX2GIsWU2VlO9fh_xFs1w92xfS7Ko5fftOrMX7fcLOtYc-rHesItPcazgtYVzbi5a7fGjghZjjvMTrBDoHWbP2fXRxW80q8IlpwTxZS1wXO5Fo5-9> 

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.

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.  

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.) 

No idea if the same can be said for TM examination. 

Dan

On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 9:25 PM Edward Timberlake via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> > wrote:

Also, for anybody not familiar:

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. 

The USPTO has no such building. 

If all of the employees were required physically to come to Alexandria, there'd be nowhere for (most of) them to work.   

-- 
E-trademarks mailing list
E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <mailto:E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> 
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250121/721cb869/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5049 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250121/721cb869/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 285 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250121/721cb869/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 452 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250121/721cb869/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 394 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250121/721cb869/attachment-0003.png>