[E-trademarks] keeping things politics-free? (was abandoning remote work? Note Federal telework Act)

Wed Jan 22 16:10:34 UTC 2025

Hi everyone!

On the topic of “are there sufficient chairs in the building” for telework employees to sit, if the USPTO were required to eliminate its remote work policy . . . in several different public presentations within the last six months, USPTO staff have mentioned that they have recently given up a bunch of its leased office space, given that these areas were currently unoccupied.  (And, given requirements to reduce the budget, it made sense not to continue to pay to keep these empty office buildings heated, etc.)

I recall that this referred to at least one of the buildings near the USPTO’s main headquarters in Alexandria – but perhaps that specific building had been dedicated to patent staff, and may not have impacted trademark operations.

Below for reference are some places where this issue is discussed – but I’m positive these references are incomplete:

  *   USPTO’s Annual Report for 2024 (issued around November 8, 2024)– see the discussion starting at page 101 on “Note 11. Leases” - https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTOFY24AFR.pdf (prior annual reports can be found through this page: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/uspto-annual-reports)
     *   Page 47 of the PDF has a section called, “Reduction of office space” – and refers to the reduction of the USPTO’s “Alexandria headquarters footprint by 841,284 square feet, or 34%, during August 2024, yielding a cost savings of more than $38.1 million in real estate expenditures annually. Combined with additional operational cost avoidance, the agency expects to save $205 million over the next five-year campus real estate lease term.”
  *   USPTO’s Telework Annual Report – (most recent report is for FY2023) - https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/organizational-offices/office-chief-administrative-officer/telework-program-office
     *   Page 6 of the 2023 Annual Report says that there’s a “$68.5 million real estate cost avoidance due to remote teleworkers.”
     *   The 2023 report notes that the USPTO “will conduct telework recertification for all employees” in 2024. (Page 23 of the 2023 slide deck).  Does anyone know if that happened and what the outcome was?  (There’s no 2024 Annual Report.)
  *   Just for comparison (although it’s not expressly applicable to the USPTO) - GAO’s Performance and Accountability Report for FY2024 - https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-900570
     *   Page 85 of the report (at p. 101 of the PDF), references “Initiated field office space-optimization planning efforts to continue reducing our physical footprint”
     *   Page 119 (page 135 of the PDF) discusses how the GAO is managing its physical space – and how it’s evaluating it’s “long-term needs for office space.”

Does anyone have any additional information about this issue?

Happy reading,
Chris

Christina D. Frangiosa, Esq.  |  Partner
NEAL & McDEVITT, LLC
600 W. Germantown Pike •  Suite 400 •  Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Direct (847) 881.2467
Main: (847) 441.9100
Fax: (847) 441.0911
cfrangiosa at nealmcdevitt.com<mailto:cfrangiosa at nealmcdevitt.com>
www.nealmcdevitt.com<http://www.nealmcdevitt.com/>  |  bio<https://www.nealmcdevitt.com/christina-frangiosa/>  |  vCard<https://www.nealmcdevitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Christina-D.-Frangiosa.vcf>  |  LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/christinafrangiosa/> |  Blog<https://privacyandiplawblog.com/>

[Logo  Description automatically generated]

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete it from your system and notify the sender identified above by e-mail.

From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Don Stout via E-trademarks
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 7:44 PM
To: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>; 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] keeping things politics-free? (was abandoning remote work? Note Federal telework Act)

Thank you Carl.

I understand some discussion concerning the USPTO remote work policies, though I don’t think the USPTO was at all the target of the EO.  But when the discussion veered into birthright citizenship – well that’s an entirely separate issue 😊

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: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com<mailto:carl at oppedahl.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 4:32 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>>
Subject: keeping things politics-free? (was abandoning remote work? Note Federal telework Act)

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, 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

[cid:image001.png at 01DB6CB1.D54EBD00]<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<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>>

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/20250122/4dabe7ea/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5049 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250122/4dabe7ea/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 285 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250122/4dabe7ea/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 452 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250122/4dabe7ea/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 394 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250122/4dabe7ea/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 33200 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250122/4dabe7ea/attachment.jpg>