Two blog articles

4 views
Skip to first unread message

David Boundy

unread,
Mar 29, 2021, 3:02:23 PM3/29/21
to Oppedahl lists, pate...@googlegroups.com
Well, maybe I'm a little self-interested (and maybe there's no "maybe" about it), but I think these two blog articles are really important.


David

David Boundy

unread,
Mar 29, 2021, 8:51:43 PM3/29/21
to Trujillo, Doreen Y., Richard Schafer, for users of PAIR, David Boundy, pate...@googlegroups.com
It's not a bad brief.    :-)

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 5:48 PM Trujillo, Doreen Y. <Doreen....@saul.com> wrote:

That was raised in the brief David et al. submitted. I was quite surprised.

 

Doreen

 

From: Richard Schafer <ric...@schafer-ip.com>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 5:39 PM
To: for users of PAIR <pa...@oppedahl-lists.com>; David Boundy <DavidBo...@gmail.com>; pate...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Trujillo, Doreen Y. <Doreen....@saul.com>
Subject: RE: Two blog articles

 

If I remember correctly, the PTO discourages PTAB judges from dissenting by making that a negative for their performance rating. They have to justify to the Vice Chief Judge why a dissent should count toward their production goals.

Could that be seen as s a due process problem, too?

 

Best regards,
Richard A. Schafer | Schafer IP Law
P.O. Box 230081 | Houston, TX 77223
M: 832.283.6564 | ric...@schafer-ip.com

 

From: Pair <pair-b...@oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Trujillo, Doreen Y. via Pair
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 4:26 PM
To: David Boundy <DavidBo...@gmail.com>; Oppedahl lists <pa...@oppedahl-lists.com>; pate...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Trujillo, Doreen Y. <Doreen....@saul.com>
Subject: Re: [Pair-L] Two blog articles

 

 

Very! And enlightening.

 

During the CLE I attended last week, someone asked if any APJs dissent for ex parte appeals. I recall the APJ presenting saying something like rarely. Now we know why.

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

Doreen

 

 

 

From: pate...@googlegroups.com <pate...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of David Boundy
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 3:02 PM
To: Oppedahl lists <pa...@oppedahl-lists.com>; pate...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Two blog articles

 

**EXTERNAL EMAIL** - This message originates from outside our Firm. Please consider carefully before responding or clicking links/attachments.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PatentLaw" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to patentlaw+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/patentlaw/CAJwugqEYHDDJ-sBW%2BkUoc-bpnu2705gz4Bh69D7mg2jKmBZsmg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

"Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP (saul.com)" has made the following annotations:

+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+

This e-mail may contain privileged, confidential, copyrighted, or other legally protected information. If you are not the intended recipient (even if the e-mail address is yours), you may not use, copy, or retransmit it. If you have received this by mistake please notify us by return e-mail, then delete.

+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+

 



--

This communication is a confidential attorney-client communication intended only for the person named above or an authorized representative.  Any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, whether by the author or recipients.  Any legal, business or tax information contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not intended as a thorough, in-depth analysis of specific issues, nor a substitute for a formal opinion, nor is it sufficient to avoid legal or other adverse consequences to the recipient. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not copy, use, disclose or distribute this communication or attribute to the Firm any information contained in this communication. If you have received this communication in error, please advise the sender by replying to this message or by telephone, and then promptly delete it.

David Boundy

unread,
Mar 30, 2021, 9:40:41 AM3/30/21
to Trujillo, Doreen Y., for users of PAIR, pate...@googlegroups.com
That's kind of the point of the Freedom of Information Act -- to shine light on things that one would consider "surprising" (in the euphemistic sense).

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 9:35 AM Trujillo, Doreen Y. <Doreen....@saul.com> wrote:

I just realized my comment may have been misleading. I was not surprised the brief addressed the issue; I was surprised that a dissent had to be justified as counting toward production goals. :)

 

Doreen

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages