PTO Transitions: Director and Deputy Director Positions Open

In September 2013, USPTO Acting Director Teresa Stanek Rea gave notice that she would step down from the agency in the near future. She has now acted-on that notice and has left the agency. Rea has been Acting Director since January 2013 when David Kappos left to take at the NY Corporate firm of Cravath. Congratulations to Director Rea on her successful tenure that will largely be seen as working toward practical goals of implementing the first-to-file and post-issuance review provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) in a time of budget cuts and Washington contention. Prior to joining the USPTO in 2011, Rea was a partner at Crowell & Morning.

Peggy Focarino, the commissioner of patents, has now stepped in with the duties of acting director. The PTO’s closest link with the White House now is through its Chief of Staff Andrew Byrnes. Unfortunately, Mr. Byrnes has only been in the role since September 2013. Prior to that Byrnes was a litigator at Covington & Burling.

Under the patent statute, the USPTO Director “shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director shall be a person who has a professional background and experience in patent or trademark law.” 35 U.S.C. ยง 3. The Deputy is then chosen by the Secretary of Commerce upon nomination by the PTO Director. The next director is expected to be a PTO outsider, but no names are forthcoming at this point.

In an email this morning, Hal Wegner distributed the above screen-shot with the caption: Whither Administration Leadership in Patents?

35 thoughts on “PTO Transitions: Director and Deputy Director Positions Open

  1. 7

    The USPTO General Counsel position is vacant as well. Knight left back in July. Will Covey, who also heads the USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline, is acting.There’s been a vacuum at the top of the USPTO since Kappos and Knight left. Not good.

  2. 6

    I admire (and like) acting Director Focarino. I hope that they reserve a place for her to return to when a director is ultimately located. The last time that a commissioner of patents did this, John Doll did not have a position to go back to as they had promoted from within and filled his position. Mr. Doll wound up leaving the agency.

  3. 1

    Oh my. I just imagine what we are in for. Another person no doubt with no patent law experience and no science background. (Or worse a chemist.) Just remember what the USSR used to do. Bring in the outsiders to oppress the cities. Or worse, we could get someone from the DOJ. Never met an attorney from the DOJ who wasn’t unscrupulous.

      1. 1.1.1

        lot’s of that going around6 asks below: “Just like we had people that were policy driven and not law driven attempting to begin patent for info processing right?”and the proper reply is: Sorry 6, but no. The law is pretty wide open on subject matter (and is meant to be that way).

      2. 1.1.3

        No it’s just his latest round of rambling insane-o-babble. The man is old D, you gotta just give him a wide berth.

      3. 1.1.4

        I toned down my comment so you wouldn’t delete it. I suspect that the next director is going to be worse than Dudas. We will probably get someone without a science or patent law background whose goal will be to eviscerate the patent system. How others do not see what is going on is beyond me. When J. Lourie writes opinions where he just reads elements off and declares that that they add no structure devoid of evidence, we should all take pause. Lourie’s opinion illustrates that the science and law mean nothing. A database and and priority event system add structure. No person skilled in the art would say otherwise. Moreover, I would bet that if Lourie was sat down with a paper and pencil that if given the rest of his life, he could not explain what a database is.And, the ignorance is unbelievable. To say that a system with database and priority event system has no structure is the same as saying that a claim with a hinge and door knob has no structure. And, the new judges at the Fed. Cir. are scary. They are outsiders to patent law with no training (except for one.) It is clear that Obama is following the edicts of the corporate money bags just as he is doing with Wall Street. I know Dennis that your game is to be polite and civil to everyone to create a popular forum, but there are outrageous things going on in our society right now.

      4. 1.1.5

        I would add too Dennis that J. Moore and CJ Rader have written opinions that are stronger than what I have written. So, why are people surprised by my opinions? It is pretty clear that we have people that are policy driven and not law driven attempting to end patent for information processing. How does anyone square that Benson says each time I write instructions for a computer that I have created a new natural law? Or discovered one. Just outrageous. You may as well tell me that the earth is flat or that the sun orbits the earth.

        1. 1.1.5.1

          “So, why are people surprised by my opinions? It is pretty clear that we have people that are policy driven and not law driven attempting to end patent for information processing.”Just like we had people that were policy driven and not law driven attempting to begin patent for info processing right?

      1. 1.2.1

        For serious.Then I really would be making my “master” proud by my remarks on here lol.

    1. 1.4

      Another person no doubt with no patent law experience and no science background. (Or worse a chemist.)Presumably this refers to the possibility that a person with a chemistry background might be “biased” against the habitual granting of “incremental innovations” in certain art units where people basically describe the “increment” they’d like to see someone else implement, then wait and see if anyone happens to implement it, file a continuation if necessary to broaden the claims to cover what the other person actually made and marketed, and then sue them.

        1. 1.4.1.1

          The phrase “incremental innovation” is, at best, redundant. As I recall, it’s a shorthand expression promulgated by Nathan Myrhvold to justify or explain the continued granting and assertion of claims that seem obvious (and therefore unworthy of patent protection) to everyone except Nathan and the guys partying in the back of his van. Underlying the concept of “incremental innovation” is the idea that nothing is obvious once one appreciates what it means to read the claims “as a whole.””Micromental innovation” is a more accurate term for what is being described.I’m thinking about a filing an application on the SmartMerkin(TM) later today. It’s going to be huge, once “the market develops.”

        2. 1.4.1.2

          “I recall, it’s a shorthand expression promulgated by Nathan Myrhvold to justify or explain”LOL – B$ – the phrase was around a very very very long time before Nathan Myrhvold.Better trolling please. (your choice of recall is suspect – you are just feeding your own CRPfest frenzy)

          1. 1.4.1.2.1

            the phrase was around a very very very long time before Nathan Myrhvold.I didn’t say Nathan invented the expression. I said he “promulgated” it. Which he has.

        1. 1.4.2.2

          Hell no. It’s all yours, Ned.Seriously, that’s a lot of management. I’m curious: have there been any PTO directors who came from “academia” after heading a university’s licensing department or something like that (e.g., WARF)?

    2. 1.5

      Would you consider Bob Armitage, the crafter of the AIA, a person with no patent law experience? He is not even from the DOJ and he doesn’t speak Russian.

        1. 1.5.1.1

          anon, can I tell you who the O-man will not appoint? Someone who represents startups, the U’s, or any professor. People who have been active politically will be preferred. This usually mean big corp or their attorneys/lobbyists.If we have to chose from among these, why don’t we go for the very best?

          1. 1.5.1.1.1

            Hal Wegner has been keeping up on the context of this thread – and points out that Michelle Lee appears to be the next anointed one (albeit there is some concern with the Executive agency playing a little loose with the Appointments Clause).

Comments are closed.