About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Court Still Cannot Decide on Amgen's Permanent Injunction | Main | StemCellPatents.com Launches New Stem Cell Patent Database »

March 27, 2008

Comments

Unless commentators provide identification and can be held responsible for their comments regarding the examiners, I think it would be best to avoid this site. Or at least take any comments with a grain of salt, understanding that the author need not take any responsibility for being correct or fair. I find it very difficult to accept that a professional such as an examiner can be so easily publicly criticised or slandered, without effective options for real defense!

jwint:

I agree with your recommendation that an opinion from an unidentified poster at this site (or frankly, at any site) should be taken with a grain of salt. Obviously, practitioners who decide to use "USPTO Examiners" as a resource will also need to carefully consider the tone of each post (i.e., is the poster's comment substantive or merely inflammatory). However, I think it's impractical to expect a practitioner to identify him or herself because of the possibility of retribution.

In addition, I expect that many examiners will receive favorable reviews, and that if this site succeeds in developing a sufficient database, such comments would be as valuable as those that are critical. In fact, as I noted in my post, one of the two comments posted on the new site was positive.

Thanks for your comment,

Donald Zuhn

One of two comments? If you click on "message board", there are actually many comments posted already.

I doubt that this site will be as useful as you hope. People tend to post only when an examiner is exceptionally good or exceptionally poor (especially the latter because they make people angry). May be the site will be useful for unmasking extremely poor examiners. That will be something at least.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31