![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Tips for the patent bar: 1) Take the Kayton course(live or home study)(Patent Resources Group_ and study for at least 10 weeks. If cost is a concern, see if you can buy it used or borrow one. 2) Do 20-30 questions per day 3) Make a master checklist of Kayton notes and 37 C.F.R. 4) Contrary to what most students and patent lawyers believe, one does not have to master the 2000 page agency manual, MPEP. Knowledge of the Kayton notes and 37 CFR is enough. Three sections of the MPEP are helpful, 600,700 and 2100. 5) Practice, Practice and Practice 6) The PTO loves to trip up students with new rules. It is important to check the PTO web site for the issuance of any final rules. Ignore the rules that are merely sent for notice and comment. When I took the Patent Bar, the PTO tested a final rule a mere 30 days before the exam!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.106.157.231 ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 9 November 2004 (UTC)
"In Europe one must be admitted to practice before the European Patent Office as a representative, or in some jurisdictions, before the relevant national Patent Office."
I think this sentence is a little bit misleading.
The title "European Patent Attorney" means nothing else than the fact that somebody is entitled to represent clients before the European Patent Office which is (at least up to now) not in any way legally governed by the European Union (EU).
There are no pan-European legal statutory provisions governing "Patent Attorneys" except the fact that the EU makes sure that respective professional qualifications are mutually recognised to some degree.
Hence, I think that it would be a good idea to change the title of that section into something like: "Professional representation before the European Patent Office - the European Patent Attorney".
Then, different national countries should be listed.
In some countries (I think, for example, Switzerland?) the profession of the Patent Attorney is not regulated.
Other countries, I think of the UK as an example, do allow representation of clients before the national Patent Office without restriction but only CIPA Members may call themselves "(Chartered) Patent Attorneys" after having passed a formal training and an examination.
Finally, in countries like Germany nobody is entitled to represent clients before the German Patent and Trade Mark Office except registered Attorneys-at-Law and, of course, registered Patent Attorneys having passed a certain training and an examination in accordance with applicable German Law.
Axel H Horns horns@ipjur.com
PS: I took the liberty to correct the spelling of my name in the text of the main article. 84.150.243.93 ( talk) 19:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Do US patent attorneys have to be admitted to a Federal bar in order to provide infringement opinions?-- Nowa 04:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Please help us to decide whether to delete Patent jock or not: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patent jock (2nd nomination). -- Edcolins 16:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll stop the revert war about Raj Abhyanker for now because it seems I have reached the threshold. Whatever comes up from the Afd will decide the outcome of this entry in this section. -- Edcolins 15:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The passage statistics haven't been released since the PTO moved to the computerized format. Is it safe to assume that the passage rates have remained constant? It's difficult to say, since there was significant fluctutation during the paper years depending on who the top guy at OED was (%30 at its lowest) Perhaps a clarification sentence would be beneficial here. -- SampsonSimpson 00:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I was under impression that these questions (inserted into the exam to vette new questions) were only done for a short time (one month or so) after the yearly revision. Is there any documentation that says they're used year-round? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.6.141.51 ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested to know what criteria are being used here to decide who is 'notable'. This list appears to be a more or less random selection of individuals. Sharon Bowles, for example, appears to be listed only because she is a member of the European Parliament, and if that is indeed the basis I doubt that is enough to be considered 'notable'. On the Wiki page devoted to her, it is stated that she is actually no longer a patent attorney. MichaelMaggs 09:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Michael
does anyon know the average income of a patent attorney? 144.39.4.54 ( talk) 20:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This appears to be one of the more abused pages on wikipedia -- from tips on the patent bar to advertisements for individual "notable patent attorneys and agents." Currently this seems to be taking the form of the blog list in the external links section. From the Manual of Style, WP:EL, blogs are generally to be avoided in the external link section. Without a good argument otherwise, I intend to delete this entire list. Emcee 07:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Not to be too much of a stickler, but I'm not sure that Paul Lerner has the sort of notability we are looking for in this article. He certainly has been a successful patent attorney and licensing agent, but I think we are looking for people who have perhaps a bit more of an unexpected notability. Otherwise, we should probably include all successful patent attorneys. Other opinions? -- Nowa 03:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Also see discussion above at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patent_attorney#Notable_patent_attorneys_and_agents -- PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The following link was posted in US patent law.
If it belongs anywhere, it belongs here. I don't see what the relevance is, however. Who cares how many patent attorneys/agents there are in a given state? Comments?-- Nowa 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Therefore, the AveryIndex link should be removed. If GreysAnatomy is truly unbiased and has no stake in the AveryIndex, then GreysAnatomy should agree with the removal because “Wikipedia should not be about boosting peoples AdWords accounts.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learned Head ( talk • contribs) 03:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
GreysAnatomy is incorrect in his/her assessment. The previous link had Google Adwords in the middle of the page, whereas AveryIndex has Google Adwords at the bottom of the page. Thus, the only difference being placement of the Google Adwords. I would not consider this “mostly advertisements.”
According to GreysAnatomy, “The AveryIndex has very little advertising, which does not violate Wikipedia policies.” Again GreysAnatomy is incorrect in his/her assessment. In fact, the AveryIndex has more advertising than the previous link. When you arrive at the landing page of AveryIndex you will find a banner ad for “The Vault”. This banner ad is know as an Affiliate Link and it is offered by a company called Commission Junction. (If you would like to verify please visit http://www.vault.com/admin2/aboutvault/aboutvault_main.jsp?aboutus=11)
Evertime someone clicks on this banner and makes a purchase at The Vault website, the owner of AveryIndex gets paid a commission. No such banner existed on the previous link’s landing page. Clearly, someone is trying to profit from the AveryIndex.
I am not advocating (nor have I ever advocated) for reinstatement of the previous link. I am advocating that we be consistent in the application of our standards. This would mean eliminating the AveryIndex link.
Further, the AveryIndex link provides nothing useful to this discussion page. All other external links are non-commercial governmental authoritative websites. Any information set forth by the AveryIndex is readily available at the existing external links. In addition, a person cannot rely on the information provided by the AveryIndex. The AveryIndex has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page with “Law firm rankings are not intended as legal or career advice.”
Greys Anatomy stated earlier in the discussion that he or she is neutral about having the AveryIndex listed. If this is true, I am not sure why GreysAnatomy is still adamant about keeping the AveryIndex. Notibly, GreysAnatomy never addressed the issue of whether or not GreysAnatomy has a stake in the AveryIndex.
The solution is simple, I propose that neither the previous link nor the AveryIndex be listed on this discussion page. It is creating to much conflict. We must protect Wikipedia from spamming and hollow commercial websites. Learned Head 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)LearnedHead (not LearnedHand)
Since GreysAnatomy is not advocating for the averyindex listing anymore, then there is no conflict. Therefore, to uphold the standards of Wikipedia, I will be removing the averyindex link.
Learned Head
04:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
GreysAnatomy, I appreciate your contribution to the article regarding the speculation that the high number of patent attorneys/agents in California is an indication that Calfornia is the technological center of the US, but we have to be a bit careful about putting speculation in a Wikipedia article. Our mission is to summarize facts and the authoritative work of others. If you can find an authoritative study where the number of patent attorneys/agents in a given geographic region is related to the innovation output of said region, then perhaps it would be worth describing the results of said study it in a short section of this article with the appropriate citation. (Oh and by the way, my great state of Connecticut has the highest rate of patented inventors per capita of any State, thus proving that we are the smartest State in the Union. Wouldn't you agree? :-) -- Nowa 17:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated the article about Paul Lerner for deletion. If you want to participate to the debate, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lerner. -- Edcolins 13:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The wikipedia article on Albert Einstein says he was a patent examiner. Maybe he should be included in the list of notables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marca17 ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Patent attorney. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Patent attorney. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Why does "patent agent" redirect to "patent attorney"? They are not the same thing. Aluf Timna ( talk) 01:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)