USPTO Sued Over "Unqualified Appointment"

Techdirt is reporting that a small group of patent lawyers and investors are suing the US Secretary of Commerce in order to prevent the appointment of Margaret Peterlin to Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office. "According to the suit, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Congress amended the Patent Act in 1999 to require that the Director and Deputy Director of the USPTO each have "professional experience and background in patent or trademark law." Peterlin's appointment, announced May 8, violates the statute because she "lacks the requisite professional experience and background," the suit said. [...] They are asking the court to order Gutierrez to dismiss Peterlin immediately and establish rules to assess what qualifies as a professional background and experience in patent or trademark law. They also want the court to order Gutierrez to appoint a replacement for Peterlin who fulfills those requirements."

Comments

Re:Idea!

[ColdWetDog]

Nope, too much prior art.

She's a Federalist, that's not enough?

[nbauman]

She's a member of the Federalist Society, isn't that enough? http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/id.54/author.a sp

What more could you want?

Re:no standing

[gurps_npc]

That is crap. They clearly have standing to sue. They represent people with pending business before the USPO, they are in immenent danger of an irreversible harm (having an unqualified person declare their patent invalid, opening it up to the entire world to steal).

Redressability is simple, having the federal government follow the law.

She's hardly the only one...

[going_the_2Rpi_way]

Given their apparent difficulty in finding 'prior art' for a wide variety of patents, it seems the USPTO is probably full of "Unqualified Apoint[ees]".

Re:no standing

[SatanicPuppy]

How do you figure? If the law states that candidates must have "professional experience and background in patent or trademark law" and the candidate lacks these (as she does), then they have grounds to open a civil action and attempt to prove it in court. This is right up with the EPA getting sued for not regulating carbon emissions

And the obvious redress would be to kick the unqualified candidate and replace her with a qualified candidate...One whose credentials include more than being J. Dennis Hastert's Counsel for Legal Policy.

Re:no standing

[djasbestos]

Nobody said they were suing for damages...a suit (especially in government) can merely end up in the court ordering something to be done. So, it may not be illegal to *not* enforce the law, but it *IS* illegal to disobey a court order.

Re:Huh?

[Nimey]

Much of our political system is staffed by people who have no idea what is constitutional and what is not.

More like they simply don't give a shit. And why should they? We're not holding them accountable.

Re:Hot Air

[starfishsystems]

She's totally qualified given her background.

She has a generally strong political background but appears to be qualified in no particular whatsoever. That's a far cry from being "totally" qualified.

Totally qualified would mean qualified in all respects, not just maybe a vague hand wave because she knows how to work the political machine.

That appears to be the essential problem. People somehow have developed the hubris that any sufficiently talented generalist can master a new field in short order and lead it to success. Not so. A senior position in any field requires someone who knows the field. And at our present level of complexity, that degree of mastery takes a lifetime.

You can settle for less in the name of political expediency, but don't fool yourself that it's just as good an appointment as someone who actually knew the field well. A totally qualified candidate would know the field and be able to get along with the political establishment. You're getting half a slice of pie.