Today, AIPLA President Wayne Sobon announced that the vacant position of Executive Director of the AIPLA will be filled by Lisa K Jorgenson. Ms. Jorgenson is an experienced patent attorney, most recently working at STMicroelectronics. One of the patents she wrote is entitled “Thread Execution Scheduler for Multi-Processing System and Method.” Somehow, I don’t think that this relates to sewing. Ms. Jorgenson will occupy the position last held by Q. Todd Dickinson, the former Commissioner of the USPTO. We wish Lisa good fortune and as smooth sailing as possible through the turbulent legal waters that we all hope she will help to calm.
Archive for the ‘Miscellaneous’ Category
Since I am suffering from section 101 fatigue, tomorrow I will be speaking at this program on indefiniteness post-Nautilus. However, this meeting gets interesting earlier in the afternoon when Andrew Hirschfeld presents on “Updates on 101 training and Examiner Guidance” (working title) followed by Michael Stein, the “AIPLA Speaker” whose topic is “Understanding Patent Eligibility After Alice, Practical Tips for Practitioners and Examiners.”
The big question for my computer law and software brethren is whether or not there is any patent eligibility post-Alice for the inventions claimed in most of their pending applications? A quick survey by one of my partners indicates that over 90% of the applications filed by one big “software company” in Class 705 (Data Processing; Financial, Business Practice, Management, or Cost/Price Determination) that have received Office Actions in August received 101 rejections. As a stock car race driver once said to me when he was boxed in and about to “take the wall,” “I had nowhere to go but up.”
Before stepping down as Chief Judge of the Fed. Cir. on May 30th, Judge Rader had sent a letter to his colleagues on the court apologizing for sending an email to an attorney who had appeared before the court a number of times, praising his work and encouraging him to circulate the email to his associates. (A copy of the letter is available at the end of this post.) The letter was dated May 23, 2014, and was clear about the error of his ways:
“I realize in retrospect that the email constituted a breach of the ethical obligation not to lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of others. I apologize for that error, which may have led to the perception that the attorney in question was in a position to influence me in my performance of judicial duties….Working with the court, I have taken steps to remedy the breaches for which I was responsible by recusing in cases as to which a question might be raised as to my impartiality. I am committed to adhering carefully to the requirements of the Code of Conduct for United States judges in making any necessary recusal decisions. I am truly sorry for the lapse and will work diligently to ensure that it does not recur….”