Cooley LLP recently announced that two top Intellectual Property lawyers have joined the firm, coming over from Chadbourne & Parke. The two IP attorneys stolen away by Cooley are Walter Hanchuk and John Kheit, both who join Cooley as partners in the firm’s New York office. Cooley’s IP group now includes more than 110 lawyers and 50 other professionals and represents many of the world’s leading technology and life sciences companies. Kheit is a long time personal friend of mine.
At Chadbourne & Parke, Hanchuk was chair of the firm’s IP practice and Kheit led the firm’s Mobile Technology practice group. Hanchuk joins Cooley’s national IP group as chair of the firm’s New York IP practice and will be driving the strategic growth of the firm’s IP practice in New York.
“Walter and John have developed one of the premier IP transactional, litigation, and patent asset creation practices in New York,” said Joe Conroy, Cooley’s New York-based CEO. “Their extensive experience in all phases of IP, including a particular expertise in financial services and software technologies, extends the reach of Cooley’s IP practice in New York and creates powerful synergies across our core IP and business technology practices across the firm.”
Founded in 1897, AIPLA is a national bar association of over 14,000 members in private and corporate practice, in government service, and in the academic community involved directly or indirectly in the practice of patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, and unfair competition law, as well as other fields of law affecting intellectual property. As AIPLA President, Mr. Lewis will be responsible for representing U.S. intellectual property interests throughout the world and guiding AIPLA’s domestic intellectual property policy.
“I am honored to have been elected President of an outstanding organization that plays a pivotal role in the global IP landscape,” Mr. Lewis said. “The coming year promises to be one of continuing change as the evolving global economy and ongoing advances in technology raise new challenges for the IP industry. I am excited to have the opportunity to work with AIPLA and its membership to address these issues and help to ensure that our intellectual property system remains strong and serves the best interests of its participants.”
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced today its proposal to update the USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility to conform to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association (ABA), versions of which have been adopted by 49 states and the District of Columbia. The USPTO is seeking public comments on the proposal for a period of 60 days, ending December 17, 2012.
This proposed rule package adopts most ABA provisions wholesale or with minor revisions and codifies many professional responsibility obligations that already apply to the practice of law. Specifically, the proposed rules will streamline practitioners’ professional responsibility obligations, bringing USPTO obligations in line with most practitioners’ state bar requirements. The package also proposes to eliminate the annual practitioner maintenance fee.
Thompson Hine LLP, a business law firm with offices Atlanta, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, New York and Washington, D.C., recently announced Clifton McCann, who practices in the area of intellectual property dispute resolution, has joined the firm.
McCann, who is now a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property group, joins Thompson Hine in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, coming over to the firm from Venable LLP. The addition of McCann comes several months after several other recent additions of what the firm refers to as “top tier laterals.”
McCann, a patent attorney with more than 30 years of experience, focuses his practice on the development and defense of patent rights in the chemical, biological, mechanical and software/business method arts. His technical background is in chemistry, biotech and physics, and he is admitted to practice before the United States Patent & Trademark Office, in the District of Columbia and in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
McCann’s practice involves a full range of intellectual property services with an emphasis on litigation, which makes up about two-thirds of his practice.
April was Autism Awareness Month. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) defines autism disorders as a group of developmental disabilities, which can cause social, communication and behavioral challenges. According to CDC estimates, 1 in 88 children are identified with an autism disorder.
The social, communication, and behavioral challenges associated with autism disorders often make it difficult for persons diagnosed with an autism disorder to find and maintain a job. Indeed, parents of children diagnosed with autism are often told that their child will not likely be able to sustain an independent life.
This, however, is not always the case. In 2008, the Fairfax Virginia based law firm of Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, PLLC (MG-IP) hired Kevin Gibson, a Fairfax resident who was diagnosed with autism at the age of 18 months. Like many others diagnosed with autism, Kevin was told he would never live independently. Kevin, now 26 years old, continues to work full-time at MG-IP managing the firm’s file room. Kevin organizes and manages thousands of patent files and is able to immediately locate any file in the office.
HAPPY INTERNATIONAL BE KIND TO LAWYERS DAY! (Previously known as National Be Kind To Lawyer’s Day!!) Have you not heard of it? Have you not read my article on this Special Celebration from years past? If your answer to these questions is NO, then you, my friend, are missing out (especially if you are a lawyer)!
So, what is this International Be Kind To Lawyers Day? I am so glad you asked! Steve Hughes, a non-lawyer from St. Louis, has been working with attorneys for many years now through his consulting firm Hit Your Stride, LLC. Whenever Steve merely mentions that he works with lawyers, he is more often than not met with snide comments, jokes and scowls. He hears things like, “Lawyers? I bet that’s a treat.” Or, “Lawyers? You poor thing.” So he asked himself, “Is it too much to ask to be nice to lawyers for just one day?” And in answer to his question, not to mention as a result of his playing defense counsel for an entire profession, the idea for National Be Kind To Lawyers Day was born.
Lately I have received a lot of requests from independent inventors who have drafted their own patent application and want me to review it prior to them filing it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The reason for having an attorney review a patent application drafted by an inventor are obvious — they want to make sure that they did everything properly.
The requests I have received lately go something like this: “I have drafted a patent application that is 30+ pages of text, plus claims and 10+ drawings. I would like to have you review the application before I submit it to make sure I haven’t made any mistakes. I also hope this review doesn’t take you more than 1 hour to complete.”One hour to complete? I don’t even believe it is possible to carefully and critically read and absorb an application of that length in 1 hour or less. This is an unrealistic request and one that is sure to turn off an experienced patent attorney who might otherwise be willing to help.
Lately I have been getting a lot of inquiries again from inventors who are interested in contingency fee representation. There is no such thing as contingency representation for purpose of preparing, filing and ultimately obtaining a patent. Patent attorneys and agents just don’t take contingency clients when the matter is patent procurement.
I write on this topic with some frequency, the last time being the spring of 2011. Please don’t take offense, this is a “tough love” article that may come across as a lecture. I have always believed that the overwhelming majority of inventors want to hear it straight and are looking for a road-map to get from point A to point B. The thing I preach all the time, and the theme of this article, is understanding the industry. The more you understand about what you should do, when you should do it and the economic realities facing the various players you will come in contact with the better off you will be to safely and successfully navigate the difficult waters of going from invention to money.
Every so often I hear something about how it is unfair or unjust that patent attorneys charge so much money for the services they provide. When I hear that I always chuckle. It seems that universally people believe that whatever a patent attorney charges goes straight into his or her pocket. If only that were true! On Wednesday I published an article titled Patent Strategy: Discovering Crucial Patent Examiner Data. As the comments to the article progressed on topic for the most part, things started to get a little off topic just a bit, which is what is prompting this article.
In Patent Strategy I explained that a reasonable quote for an office action response is $2,000. Certainly it can be more depending upon the technology, but if you were going to poll patent practitioners from patent attorneys to patent agents I suspect you would come out with something close to a $2,000 average. This prompted one patent examiner to comment: “You said in this article that practitioners make $2,000 per response on average. How much do examiners make per response? Probably a fourth or a third of that. I mean I try to do the best job I can but do you really expect all examiners who get paid a fourth or a third of what you make to perform at the level that you do?”