Patent and Trademark Attorneys, Agents, and Applicants for Restoration and Maintenance of Integrity in Government

Projects:

Here are recent projects of PTAAARMIGAN, and past projects of others that exemplify the kinds of projects PTAAARMIGAN will undertake in the future:
2021:

Notice-and-comment letters to the Office of Management and Budget requesting reform of the PTO’s haphazard and unpredictable standards for accepting Powers of Attorney (Apr. 30, 2021) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3837726

2021:

Notice-and-comment letters to the Office of Management and Budget opposing the
PTO’s burdensome and illegally-promulgated CLE rule https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3814383

2021:

Notice-and-comment letters to the Office of Management and Budget opposing the
PTO’s trademark domicile address “where you sleep at night” rule https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202002-0651-005

2021:

AIPLA’s letter opposing the PTO’s CLE rule (Jan 7, 2021)

https://www.aipla.org/docs/default-source/advocacy/documents/2021/aipla-letter-to-
uspto-on-cle-guidence-010721-final.pdf?sfvrsn=41636be9_2

2020:

Notice-and-comment letters to the Office of Management and Budget opposing the
PTO’s DOCX rule https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202011-0651-006

2019:

Seventy-Three Patent Practitioners, Comment Letter on Setting and Adjusting Patent
Fees During Fiscal Year 2020, opposing PTO’s illegal fee setting
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3526448

2018:

A petition for rulemaking by the Software Freedom Conservancy, seeking rescission
of the PTO’s domicile address “where you sleep at night rule
9/18/2019 Petition for Rulemaking
8/11/2021 PTO’s Decision denying Petition

2011:

a comment letter by David Boundy, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76
Fed. Reg. 15891 (March 22, 2011) (May 23, 2011), here
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/boundy23may2011.pdf

2011:

a comment letter by Richard B. Belzer, Comments on “Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review; Request for information” (76 Fed. Reg. 15891) (Apr. 14,. 2011), here
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/comments/belzer14apr2011.pdf

2007-08:

Submissions to OMB that led OMB to quash the 2007 3 continuations, 5/25 claims, IDS, Markush, and appeal rules

Review of IDS rule under Executive Order 12866
Review of Continuations and Claims rules under Executive Order 12866
Review of Appeal Rule under Paperwork Reduction Act
Review of Continuations and Claims rules under Paperwork Reduction Act
Other meetings relating to Patent Office rules reviewed under Executive Order 12866

Information obtained by Freedom of Information Act:

FOIA Request F-22-00092: Request for documents relating to “yearlong study” of feasibility of filing patent applications in PDF vs DOCX form

8/3/2020 85 Fed. Reg. 46392 Federal Register notice relying on “yearlong study”
3/28/2022 FOIA request F-22-00092
4/6/2022 PTO’s request for clarification
4/22/2022 PTAAARMIGAN’s reply to request for clarification

FOIA Request F-22-00072: Request for internal guidance relating to rulemaking and information collection clearances

1/28/2022 FOIA request F-22-00072
3/9/2022 PTO’s request for clarification
3/24/2022 PTAAARMIGAN’s reply to request for clarification
4/21/2022 PTO’s request for feees
5/23/2022 PTAAARMIGAN’s appeal from adverse fee determination

FOIA Request F-21-00186: Request by US Inventor for information relating to Drew Hirshfeld’s authority to “perform the functions and duties” of the Director

11/2/2021 Complaint in District Court for the District of Columbia
11/21/2021 PTO’s response

FOIA Request F-21-00178: Request by Software Freedom Conservancy for PTO rulemaking policy documents

7/23/2021 FOIA request
8/24/2021 Agency Response and Documents produced

FOIA Request F-21-00169: rulemaking file for DOCX rule

7/12/2021 FOIA request
7/27/2021 Interim Response
8/25/2021 PTAAARMIGAN’s Appeal
9/22/2021 Decision on appeal
12/2/2021 Interim Agency Response and Release 1 and Release 2
1/12/2021  Second Interim Agency Response and Release 1 and Release 2

FOIA Request F-21-00163: § 101 examination guidance

7/9/2021 FOIA request by Alex Moss of PIPLI
8/26/2021 Agency Response letter and production

FOIA Request F-21-00123: examination guidelines, focusing on claims that recite one component in terms of its relationship or interaction with another

3/15/2021 FOIA request
7/28/2021 Agency Response letter
7/28/2021 Training Slides

FOIA Request F-21-00111: PAP Support Document, the rules for determining compensation for PTAB APJs

4/6/2021 FOIA request
5/27/2021 Agency Response letter
5/27/2021 PAP Support Documents

FOIA Request F-21-00090 and appeal A-21-00001 — PTO’s PTAB bonus approval request from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management

US Inventor’s FOIA request F-21-00090 (April 6, 2021)
The PTO’s Final denial letter for FOIA request F-21-00090 (May 4, 2021)
US Inventor’s Appeal A-21-000001 (May 25, 2021) & PTO’s acknowledgement letter (May 26, 2021)
The PTO’s Denial of Appeal A-21-000001 (June 22, 2021)

FOIA Request F-21-00084: Rules for signatures, the “real rules” that govern whether the PTO will accept a Power of Attorney, § 3.73 Statement, and the like

11/2013 a leaked document that prompted the request
3/12/2021 FOIA request F-21-00084, for PTO’s secret rules governing powers of attorney
3/31/2021 Acknowlegement letter (falsifying filing date as March 29, 2021)
5/10/2021 Request for Fee Waiver
12/7/2021 Complaint in District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Boundy v. PTO
12/11/2021 Letter David Boundy to Dorothy Campbell clarifying request
12/7/2021  Full Disclosure Response and production of one-page guidance document
12/28/2021 Appeal
1/21/2022 Decison on Appeal and new acknowledgement letter
2/11/2022  Final Agency Response and production part 1 and production part 2  (nine page excerpt)
4/19/2022 a further document dripped out (re-redacting 2/11/2022 production part 2)

FOIA Request F-21-00011 – Performance Appraisal Plans (PAP) for PTO & PTAB Executives

US Inventor FOIA Request F-21-00011 (October 8, 2020)
The PTO’s cover letter for FOIA request F-21-00011
Chief APJ PAP (FY 2016)
Deputy Chief APJ PAP (FY 2018)
Vice Chief APJ PAP (FY 2017)

FOIA request FOIA F-20-00065 — recruitment and hiring of PTAB APJs

The PTO’s cover letter for FOIA request F-20-00065 (Mar. 13, 2020)
Various documents relating to recruiting and hiring of PTAB APJs

FOIA Request F-19-00277 and appeal A-20-00001 — compensation and production expectancies for PTAB APJs

US Inventor’s FOIA request F-19-00277 (Sep. 16, 2019)
The PTO’s cover letter for FOIA request F-19-00277 (Nov 4, 2019)
Performance Appraisal Plans (PAP) for PTAB APJs
APJ PAP (FY 2018)
Lead APJ PAP (FY 2018)
Production expectancies for PTAB APJs
Several PTAB Standard Operating Procedures
US Inventor’s Appeal A-20-000001 (Feb. 4, 2020)
Cover letter in response to appeal (Apr. 8, 2020)
Various documents relating to PTAB APJ compensation
PAPs reorganized by office:
Commissioner for Patents
Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy
Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy — Advisor
Chief Administrative Patent Judge
Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge
Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge
Commissioner for Trademarks
Chief Administrative Trademark Judge
General Counsel
Chief Information Officer

FOIA Request to OMB 2016-128

8/5/2016 ACET’s second appeal
11/30/2016 OMB’s cover letter
11/30/2016 OMB’s partial production
1/31/2017 OMB’s cover letter
1/31/2017 OMB’s production

FOIA Request to OMB 2016-127 ACET’s third OMB FOIA Request on petitions filed by third parties to OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3517(b) for determination whether certain agency information collections are cognizable under the PRA.

8/2/2016 ACET’s FOIA request
1/31/2017 OMB’s cover letter
1/31/2017 OMB’s production

FOIA Request to OMB 2016-126 ACET’s second OMB FOIA Request on various PRA agency guidance and on USPTO ICR for Rules in 37 C.F.R. 1.105, 1.129, 1.141-1.146, and MPEP Ch. 800.

8/2/2016 ACET’s FOIA request
1/31/2017 OMB’s cover letter
1/31/2017 OMB’s production

FOIA Request F-16-00215 ACET’s USPTO FOIA Request on derivation of paperwork burden estimates of ICR on Patent Processing (Updating), OMB Control No. 0651-0031.

6/10/2016 ACET’s FOIA request
9/6/2016 ACET appeal re PTO’s delinquency in meeting its statutory deadline
10/5/2016 USPTO’s initial production of heavly redacted records—cover letter
10/5/2016 USPTO’s initial production
11/16/2016 ACET’s second appeal re failure ot produce
12/19/2016 USPTO Denial of ACET’s Appeal on F-16-215

FOIA Request to OMB 2016-096 ACET’s first OMB FOIA Request on various PRA agency guidance and on USPTO ICR for Rules in 37 C.F.R. 1.111, 1.115, 1.116, 1.130-1.132, and for Patent Processing (Updating), OMB Control No. 0651-0031

6/10/2016 ACET’s FOIA request
7/20/2016 ACET’s appeal re OMB’s failure to respond within statutory deadline
8/2/2016 OMB’s cover letter, stating all responsive documents are hosted on OMB’s web site, and no further responsive documents exist

FOIA Request F-18-___ Gene Quinn’s FOIA request for examiner appraisal plans and production goals, as well as training materials and timesheets for APJs

3/12/2018 Gene Quinn’s FOIA request https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/04/24/uspto-ignores-foia-requests-ptab/id=96226/
2018 last word on IPWatchdog is that no response was received

FOIA Request F-18-___ Gene Quinn’s FOIA request for the names, law schools, and CV for the APJs

3/7/2018 Gene Quinn’s FOIA request https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/04/24/uspto-ignores-foia-requests-ptab/id=96226/
2018 the last word is that the PTO never responded

FOIA Request F-18-00140 Gene Quinn’s FOIA request for documents relating to APJ production credit for concurring and dissenting opinions

3/7/2018 Gene Quinn’s FOIA request
6/6/2018 PTO’s response

FOIA Request F-17-00235 Gene Quinn’s FOIA request for any documents relating to ethics rules or rules of judicial conduct applicable to PTAB APJ’s

5/11/2017 Gene Quinn’s FOIA request (see bottom of https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/05/15/foia-request-uspto-rules-judicial-conduct-ptab-judges/id=83273 )
5/31/2017 PTO’s response

FOIA Request F-17-___ Gene Quinn’s FOIA request for the names of persons on the PTO’s regulatory reform task force assembled to implement Executive Order 13777

3/30/2017 Gene Quinn’s FOIA request
4/27/2017 PTO’s response (see https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/04/27/status-uspto-regulatory-reform-task-force-uncertain/id=82641 )

FOIA Request F-17-112 ACET’s second FOIA request from USPTO on derivation of paperwork burden estimates and on guidance for complying with OMB PRA reviews.

2/2/2017 ACET’s FOIA request

PTAB Standard Operating Procedures:

PTAB Standard Operating Procedure 1: Assignment of APJs to merits panels, motion panels, expanded panels
PTO PTAB SOP1 2009-02-12 rev 13
PTO PTAB SOP1 2015-05-08 rev 14
PTO PTAB SOP1 2018-09-20 rev 15
PTAB Standard Operating Procedure 2: Publication of Opinions; Designation and De-Designation as Precedential, Informative, Routine; Precedential Opinion Panel
PTO PTAB SOP2 2000-03-29 rev 4
PTO PTAB SOP2 2005-08-10 rev 6
PTO PTAB SOP2 2007-01-23 OG Notice announcing publication
PTO PTAB SOP2 2008-03-23 Rev 7
PTO PTAB SOP2 2013-08-12 Rev 8
PTO PTAB SOP2 2014-09-22 Rev 9
PTO PTAB SOP2 2018-09-20 Rev 10
PTAB Standard Operating Procedure 3: Processing Procedures for Ex parte Appeals
PTO PTAB SOP3 2006-12-07 Rev 0
PTO PTAB SOP3 2009-06-16 Rev 1
PTO PTAB SOP3 2010-03-30 Rev 2 (interim)
PTAB Standard Operating Procedure 4: Standards for Opinions in Appeal Decisions
PTO PTAB SOP4 2006-12-07 Rev 0
PTO PTAB SOP4 2007-10-01 Rev 0.1
PTO PTAB SOP4 2007-11-15 Rev 0.2
PTO PTAB SOP4 2009-11-12 Rev 1
PTO PTAB SOP4 2010-06-30 Rev 2
PTO PTAB SOP4 2011 Rev 3
PTO PTAB SOP4 2014-05-30 Rev 5.0
PTO PTAB SOP4 2014-09-30 Rev 5.2
PTAB Standard Operating Procedure 7: Designation as Board Decisions-Orders as Informative
PTO PTAB SOP7 2007-07-23
PTAB Standard Operating Procedure 8: Designation as Board Decisions-Orders as Informative
PTO PTAB SOP8 2008-09-10 Rev 5.2s
PTO PTAB SOP8 2009-01-07
PTAB Standard Operating Procedure 9: Procedure for Decisions Remanded from the Federal Circuit
PTO PTAB SOP9 2017-11-09 rev 1

Articles of interest:

David Boundy, A Study in Scarlet–—Powers of Attorney and USPTO Rulemaking, Part I: A Hidden Guidance Document, http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2022/07/13/study-scarlet-powers-attorney-uspto-rulemaking-part-hidden-guidance-document/id=150182, and Part II: The USPTO Fails to Take the Paperwork Reduction Act Seriously. https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2022/07/19/study-scarlet-powers-attorney-uspto-rulemaking-part-ii/id=150256

M. David Hoyle, USPTO Implementation of Arthrex: Questions from Administrative Law, Part I—Dismissal and Subregulatory Rulemaking, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/07/22/uspto-implementation-arthrex-questions-answers-administrative-law-part-dismissal-subregulatory-rulemaking/id=13589  and Part II—the Bigger Picture for Reform, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/07/26/uspto-implementation-arthrex-questions-administrative-law-part-ii-bigger-picture-reform/id=135965
Katznelson, Ron, The Pecuniary Interests of PTAB Judges – Empirical Analysis Relating Bonus Awards to Decisions in AIA Trials (Jun. 22, 2021) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3871108
Administrative Conference of the United States, Recommendation No. 2021-2, Periodic Retrospective Review (Jun. 17, 2021) https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/periodic-retrospective-review  or here  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-07-08/pdf/2021-14597.pdf
Administrative Conference of the United States, Recommendation No. 2020-1, Rules on Rulemakings (Dec. 16, 2020) https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/rules-rulemakings or https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/22/2021-01273/adoption-of-recommendations
Boundy, David, ‘Nonfunctional Descriptive Material’ vs. ‘Printed Matter’—The PTAB’s Defiance of Federal Circuit Precedent . LANDSLIDE (American Bar Ass’n) vol. 12 nr 3, pp 46-51 (Jan-Feb 2020) https://ssrn.com/abstract=3516864 or  http://cambridgetechlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Boundy-Nonfunctional-descriptive-material-vs-Printed-matter-Landslide-v-12-nr-3-Jan-Feb-2020-CutePDF-opimize-reduce.pdf
Administrative Conference of the United States, Recommendation No. 2019-7, Acting Agency Officials and Delegations of Authority (Dec. 12, 2019), https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/acting-agency-officials-and-delegations-authority or https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-12-27/pdf/2019-27930.pdf
Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Brief of Amicus Curiae David E. Boundy in Support of Neither Party (September 17, 2019) https://cdn.patentlyo.com/media/2019/09/BoundyBrief.pdf or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3687493. The Federal Circuit’s decision tracks this brief closely.
Administrative Conference of the United States, Recommendation No. 2019-1, Agency Guidance Through Interpretive Rules (Jun. 13, 2019) https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/agency-guidance-through-interpretive-rules or https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-08-08/pdf/2019-16946.pdf
Boundy, David, An Administrative Law View of the PTAB’s ‘Ordinary Meaning’ Rule (January 30, 2019). Westlaw Journal Intellectual Property 25:21 13-16 (Jan. 30, 2019), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3326827 or http://cambridgetechlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Boundy-An-administrative-law-view-of-the-PTAB%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98ordinary-meaning%E2%80%99-rule-Westlaw-Journal-IP-Jan-30-2019.pdf
Boundy, David, The PTAB Is Not an Article III Court, Part 3: Precedential and Informative Opinions (October 30, 2018). AIPLA Q.J. vol. 47 No. 1 pp. 1-99 (June 2019), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3258694 or http://cambridgetechlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Boundy-The-PTAB-is-Not-an-Article-III-Court-Part-3-Precedential-and-Informative-Decisions-Directors-Cut-2019-09-25.pdf
Administrative Conference of the United States, Recommendation No. 2018-1, Paperwork Reduction Act Efficiencies (Jun. 14, 2018),
https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/paperwork-reduction-act-efficiencies or https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-29/pdf/2018-14075.pdf
Boundy, David and Freistein, Andrew B., The PTAB Is Not an Article III Court, Part 2: Aqua Products v. Matal As a Case Study in Chevron Deference and Administrative Law. American Bar Ass’n, LANDSLIDE, vol. 10 nr. 5, pp. 44-51, 64 (May/Jun 2018),
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3258047 or http://cambridgetechlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Boundy-The-PTAB-is-Not-an-Article-III-Court-Part-2-Aqua-Products-and-Chevron-Deference-ABA-Landslide-v-10-n-5-p-44.pdf
Boundy, David, The PTAB is Not an Article III Court, Part 1: A Primer on Federal Agency Rule Making. LANDSLIDE (American Bar Ass’n), vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 9-13, 51-57 (Nov/Dec 2017), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3258044 or http://cambridgetechlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Boundy-The-PTAB-is-Not-an-Article-III-Court-Part-1-Primer-in-Federal-Agency-Rulemaking-ABA-Landslide-v-10-n-2-p-9.pdf
Boundy, David, Agency Bad Guidance Practices at the Patent and Trademark Office: a Billion Dollar Problem, 2018 Patently-O Patent Law Journal (Dec. 20 2018), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3258040 or http://cambridgetechlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Boundy-Agency-Bad-Guidance-Practices-at-PTO-a-Billion-Dollar-Problem-2018-PatentlyO-Patent-L-J-20-revision-of-Dec-6-2018.pdf
Executive Office of the President, Bulletin No. 07-02, Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices (Jan. 18, 2007),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2007/m07-07.pdf or https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2007-01-25/pdf/E7-1066.pdf
Robert A. Anthony, Interpretive Rules, Policy Statements, Guidances, Manuals, And The Like–Should Federal Agencies Use Them To Bind The Public?, 41 DUKE L.J. 1311, 1322-23 (Jun. 1992) https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3188&context=dlj .

 

“Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does.”

William James