[E-trademarks] keeping things politics-free? (was abandoning remote work? Note Federal telework Act)
Carl Oppedahl
carl at oppedahl.com
Wed Jan 22 00:31:42 UTC 2025
Thank you Don for posting. As the sponsor of this and a dozen other
intellectual property practitioner listservs, I will share my own
feeling about this particular topic. You are quite right that the
collegiality of this listserv is precious and important. Balanced
against this is the reality that all of our livelihoods are tied closely
to things that happen at the USPTO. I will invite listserv members to
continue to discuss this particular topic, while doing the best we can
to minimize as best one can the risk of political polarization in any
part of the discussion.
Yes it is a simple fact that if the USPTO management were to try to
bring an end to work-from-home, it would simply fail, for many reasons.
One very simple factual reason is that there are not enough chairs and
benches in the USPTO office buildings to provide places for the WFH
employees to sit if they were all to start reporting to work at the
office in person.
I recognize that there surely are members of this listserv who voted for
the newly inaugurated president just as other members of this listserv
did not vote for the newly inaugurated president. Hopefully we can find
ways to monitor the continued developments about this particular
Executive Order, as it relates to the USPTO, in discussions that can be
nearly purely factual, doing our best to try to avoid needlessly getting
into the broader political polarization that affects every one of us
every day.
I probably did not express these thoughts very well, for which I
apologize in advance. But I hope we can avoid polarizing words and
tones while discussing developments at the USPTO.
Carl
On 1/21/2025 2:40 PM, Don Stout via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> 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, CA92653
>
> 949-450-1750
>
> 949-450-1764 fax
>
> Email: 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> *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>
> *Cc:* Laura Geyer <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> *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>
> *Cc:* Kevin Grierson <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 14^th 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/>
>
>
>
>
> Mobile:
>
>
>
> 757-726-7799 <tel:757-726-7799>
>
> Fax:
>
>
>
> 866-521-5663 <fax:866-521-5663>
>
> Email:
>
>
>
> kgrierson at cm.law <mailto:kgrierson at cm.law>
>
> */Please note: Culhane Meadows is now CM Law
> <https://www.cm.law/cm-law-formerly-culhane-meadows-launches-second-decade-with-fresh-name-and-modern-brand/>/*
>
>
> *From:*E-trademarks <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>
> *Cc:* Catherine Goe <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>
> 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>
> Cc: Dan Feigelson <djf at iliplaw.com>
>
>
>
> 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> 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
> 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/20250121/405711cf/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/20250121/405711cf/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/20250121/405711cf/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/20250121/405711cf/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/20250121/405711cf/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4751 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250121/405711cf/attachment.p7s>
More information about the E-trademarks
mailing list