menu.svg
Table of Contents
Open Community Calendar >
close.svg
Message from the President Rebecca M. McNeill
Read more >
Message from the Editor
Read more >
Minutes of the Annual Meeting
Read more >
Annual Symposium
Read more >
BIPLA Annual Writing Competition
Read more >
MTAS and the Common Law of Bailment
Read more >
2023 BIPLA Comment on Expanding Criteria for Admission to Practice
Read more >
2023 BIPLA Comment on Patent System Robustness and Reliability
Read more >
Members on the Move
Read more >
A Look At The Legal Intersection Of AI And Life Sciences
Read more >
Optimising prosecution strategy for patent term extensions in Europe
Read more >
What is the current threshold for support of a patent claim in New Zealand?
Read more >
The Top Ten TTAB Decisions of 2022
Read more >
List of Officers and Board of Governors
Read more >
Job Listings
Read more >
< Back
calendar.pngcalendar__2_.png
< Previous Article
Table of Contents
Next Article >
2023 Ⓒ Boston Intellectual Property Law Association
home.pngfacebook.pngtwitter-squared.pnglinkedIn.pngmail.png

2023 BIPLA Comment on Expanding Criteria for Admission to Practice

By Nicole Palmer, Lando & Anastasi, Jonathan B. Roses, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, and Matt Van Eman, McCarter & English
The Patent Office Practice Committee of the Boston Intellectual Property Law Association authored a January 2023 Response to USPTO Request for Comments regarding proposals to expand the criteria for admission to practice before the Office. The Response supported the USPTO’s proposals to periodically review applicant degrees for inclusion in the “Category A” of degrees that automatically qualify an applicant to sit for the examination for registration to practice in patent cases before the USPTO (commonly referred to as the “patent bar exam”), to allow for computer sciences degrees to so qualify an applicant regardless of whether they are accredited by the Computer Science Accreditation Commission of the Computer Science Accreditation Board or by the Computing Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (“ABET”).
The Response also advocated for the implementation of a separate “design patent bar examination” that would enable applicants to register to practice in design patent cases before the USPTO without the requirement that applicants be U.S. attorneys, as long as they are able to demonstrate qualifications or work experience sufficient for them to represent others in design patent prosecution. Finally, the Response reiterated the organization’s May 24, 2021 Comments on administrative updates for the requirements to sit for the patent bar exam, advocating for a flexible approach to determine whether an applicant’s degree should be considered under Category A, and explaining that this would encourage participation of those presently underrepresented in the innovation ecosystem.
twitter-squared.pnglinkedIn.pngfacebook.pngmail.pngfacebook.png