Notice of Roundtable and Request for Comments on Domestic and International Issues Related to Privileged Communications Between Patent Practitioners and Their Clients, 3953-3955 [2015-01241]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Notices
Council address: Pacific Council,
7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101,
Portland, OR 97220–1384.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brett Wiedoff, Staff Officer; telephone:
(503) 820–2424.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
primary purpose of the webinar is to
develop a reasonable range of
alternatives for the vessel movement
monitoring (VMM) agenda item
scheduled for the Pacific Council’s
April 2015 meeting in Rohnert Park, CA.
The EC will discuss options to monitor
the movement of fishing vessels in the
commercial groundfish fishery. The EC
will also discuss options for fishpot gear
deployment, derelict gear removal
options, and fishery declaration
enhancements. Other pertinent items
that are on the Pacific Council’s agenda
for the March 2015 meeting in
Vancouver, WA may be addressed if
time allows. Actions will be restricted to
those issues specifically listed in this
notice and any issues arising after
publication of this notice that require
emergency action under Section 305(c)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act,
provided the public has been notified of
the EC’s intent to take final action to
address the emergency. Public comment
may be accommodated if time allows, at
the discretion of the EC Chair.
Special Accommodations
The listening station at the Pacific
Council office is physically accessible to
people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr.
Kris Kleinschmidt, at (503) 820–2280, at
least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Dated: January 21, 2015.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–01261 Filed 1–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XD736
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Pacific Fishery Management Council;
Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; public meeting.
AGENCY:
The Pacific Fishery
Management Council’s (Pacific Council)
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:48 Jan 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
ad hoc Ecosystem Work Group (EWG)
will hold a webinar, which is open to
the public.
DATES: The EWG will hold the webinar
on Wednesday, February, 11, 2015, from
1 p.m. until business for the day is
complete.
ADDRESSES: To attend the webinar, visit
https://www.gotomeeting.com/online/
webinar/join-webinar. Enter the webinar
ID, which is 103–198–035, and your
name and email address (required).
Once you have joined the webinar,
choose either your computer’s audio or
select ‘‘Use Telephone.’’ If you do not
select ‘‘Use Telephone’’ you will be
connected to audio using your
computer’s microphone and speakers
(VolP). It is recommended that you use
a computer headset, as GoToMeeting
allows you to listen to the meeting using
your computer headset and speakers. If
you do not have a headset and speakers,
you may use your telephone for the
audio portion of the meeting by dialing
this TOLL number 1–480–297–0021 (not
a toll-free number); phone audio access
code 932–675–759; audio phone pin
shown after joining the webinar. System
Requirements for PC-based attendees:
Required: Windows® 7, Vista, or XP; for
Mac®-based attendees: Required: Mac
OS® X 10.5 or newer; and for mobile
attendees: iPhone®, iPad®, AndroidTM
phone or Android tablet (See the
GoToMeeting Webinar Apps). You may
send an email to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt
or contact him at 503–820–2425 for
technical assistance. A listening station
will also be provided at the Pacific
Council office.
Council address: Pacific Council,
7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101,
Portland, OR 97220–1384.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Mike Burner, Pacific Council;
telephone: (503) 820–2414.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EWG
will discuss agenda items in preparation
for the Council’s March 2015 meeting in
Vancouver, WA. The primary focus will
be on Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP)
Initiative 1: Protecting Unfished and
Unmanaged Forage Fish Species. Other
topics may include the review of FEP
initiatives, the Annual State of the
California Current Ecosystem Report,
and one or more of the Council’s
scheduled Administrative Matters.
Public comments during the webinar
will be received from attendees at the
discretion of the EWG Chair.
Although non-emergency issues not
contained in the meeting agenda may be
discussed, those issues may not be the
subject of formal action during this
meeting. Action will be restricted to
those issues specifically listed in this
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3953
document and any issues arising after
publication of this document that
require emergency action under section
305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act,
provided the public has been notified of
the intent to take final action to address
the emergency.
Special Accommodations
The meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr.
Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820–2425 at
least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Dated: January 21, 2015.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–01260 Filed 1–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
[Docket No. PTO–C–2014–0066]
Notice of Roundtable and Request for
Comments on Domestic and
International Issues Related to
Privileged Communications Between
Patent Practitioners and Their Clients
United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of roundtable and
request for written comments.
AGENCY:
The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking
input on issues regarding protections
from disclosure for communications
between patent applicants and Their
advisors. The issues include: Whether
and to what extent U.S. courts should
recognize privilege for communications
between foreign patent practitioners and
their clients; the extent to which
communications between U.S. patent
applicants and their non-attorney U.S.
patent agents should be privileged in
U.S. courts; and whether and to what
extent communications between U.S.
patent practitioners and their clients
should receive privilege in foreign
jurisdictions. The USPTO is hosting a
roundtable and soliciting written
comments to gather information and
views on these questions.
DATES: The roundtable will be held on
Wednesday, February 18, 2015. The
roundtable will begin at 10:00 a.m. and
end at 12:30 p.m. Written comments are
due by Wednesday, February 25, 2015,
for full consideration.
ADDRESSES: The roundtable will be held
at the United States Patent and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
3954
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Notices
Trademark Office, Madison Auditorium,
Madison Building, 600 Dulany Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information regarding the
roundtable or written comments, please
contact Soma Saha or Edward Elliott at
the Office of Policy and International
Affairs, by telephone at (571) 272–9300,
by email at ACPrivilege@uspto.gov, or
by postal mail addressed to: Mail Stop
OPIA, United States Patent and
Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450,
Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450,
ATTN: Soma Saha or Edward Elliott.
Please direct all media inquiries to the
Office of the Chief Communications
Officer, USPTO, at (571) 272–8400.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1. Background
Innovators who seek patent protection
in multiple jurisdictions may engage
patent practitioners (attorneys or other
registered representatives) in each of
those jurisdictions. Currently, there is
little consistency in whether the
innovators’ communications with their
patent practitioners will be recognized
as privileged by courts. The rules
governing privilege vary from country to
country and between U.S. jurisdictions.
As a result, innovators may be reluctant
to share critical information with their
patent practitioners because the
information may be subject to disclosure
in judicial proceedings.
In addition, privilege issues also affect
practitioners in the United States. U.S.
district courts have inconsistent rules
regarding the availability and scope of
privilege for communications between
clients and their non-attorney U.S.
patent agents.
The USPTO is interested in the
following topics that focus on three
different aspects of privileged
communications affecting U.S. entities.
First, the USPTO is interested in the
state of U.S. law with respect to
protecting communications between
patent applicants and their non-U.S.
patent practitioners from disclosure in
U.S. litigation. The law in the United
States differs from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction. Some U.S. courts do not
protect communications with foreign
practitioners under any circumstances.
Other courts may protect those
communications, but they employ a
variety of tests to decide whether and to
what extent to grant privilege. Factors
that U.S. courts consider include:
Whether the foreign practitioner acted
under the direction of a U.S. attorney;
whether the foreign practitioner would
receive privilege under the laws of the
country where the patent application
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:48 Jan 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
was filed; and how the competing
interests of all involved jurisdictions are
affected. The patchwork of rules
between circuits and districts can make
it unclear under which circumstances
communications are privileged.
Second, the USPTO is interested in
how foreign courts treat
communications between U.S. patent
agents or attorneys and their clients.
Problems arise most frequently in
common law jurisdictions, some of
which do not extend privilege to
communications between a patent
applicant and foreign patent
practitioners. For this reason, Australia
and New Zealand, both common law
countries, recently passed laws
extending privilege to foreign patent
practitioners who are authorized to
provide patent advice in other
countries. Civil law jurisdictions
generally impose professional secrecy
obligations that function similarly to
privilege, but secrecy issues appear to
arise less frequently in practice.
Finally, the USPTO is interested in
the extent and nature of protection, if
any, that U.S. courts accord to
communications between clients and
their non-attorney U.S. patent agents. In
the United States, patent practitioners
(whether agents or attorneys) must be
registered to practice before the USPTO,
e.g., to prosecute patent applications as
an applicant’s representative. In order to
register, both types of practitioners must
demonstrate certain legal, scientific, and
technical qualifications and pass a
registration exam. However, patent
agents, unlike patent attorneys, are not
required to be separately licensed to
practice law. Communications between
U.S. patent agents and their clients are
treated differently by various U.S.
district courts, which follow their own
precedents with respect to whether the
communications are privileged. Some
district courts have denied privilege
altogether for patent agents, while other
courts have granted privilege to agents
only when their work is overseen by an
attorney. Still others have recognized
privilege only for communications with
an agent regarding activities before the
USPTO, or only when the
communications concern a related
adversarial process.
To address the lack of uniformity for
potentially privileged communications
discussed above, the possibility of
developing an international minimum
standard for recognizing privileged
communications between clients and
patent practitioners has been considered
in recent years by the Standing
Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP)
at the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO). Those discussions
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
have resulted in a compilation of
relevant laws in WIPO member
countries on this issue. For more
information, please see WIPO document
SCP/20/9, ‘‘Confidentiality of
Communications between Clients and
their Patent Advisors: Compilation of
Laws, Practices and other Information,’’
available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/
mdocs/patent_policy/en/scp_20/scp_
20_9.pdf. This document also contains a
summary of U.S. law on this issue.
Separately, several industry
organizations from the United States
and Europe have proposed an
international framework that they
believe would help mitigate some of the
uncertainty that exists in the current
system. A copy of their proposed
framework can be found at: https://
www.aippi.org/download/
onlinePublications/Attachment1
SubmissiontoWIPODecember182013_
SCP.pdf.
The USPTO is conducting this public
roundtable to solicit comments from
interested parties on protecting
confidential communications between
innovators and their patent practitioner
representatives. The number of
participants in the roundtable is limited
to ensure that all speakers have a
meaningful opportunity to present their
views. Those who wish to participate in
the roundtable should submit a written
request, per the instructions below.
Members of the public who wish to
attend and observe the roundtable need
not submit a request.
Anyone may submit written
comments for consideration by the
USPTO on issues relevant to this notice
or raised at the roundtable. The USPTO
plans to make the roundtable available
via webcast. Webcast information will
be available on the USPTO’s Web site
before the roundtable. The written
comments and list of the roundtable
participants and their associations will
be available from the USPTO’s Web site.
2. Issues for Public Comment
The topics and questions listed below
reflect particular issues for which the
USPTO would appreciate receiving
input from interested stakeholders.
Responses are not restricted to these
topics; comments may provide any
information the submitter wishes the
USPTO to consider. The questions
should not be taken as an indication
that the USPTO has taken a position or
is predisposed to any particular views.
1. Please explain the impact, if any,
resulting from inconsistent treatment of
privilege rules among U.S. federal
courts. In your answer, please identify
if the impact is on communications with
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Notices
foreign, domestic, or both types of
patent practitioners.
2. Please explain how U.S.
stakeholders would be impacted by a
national standard for U.S. courts to
recognize privilege for communications
with U.S. patent agents, including
potential benefits and costs. If you
believe such a standard would be
beneficial, please explain what the
scope of a national standard should
cover.
3. Please explain how U.S.
stakeholders would be impacted by a
national standard for U.S. courts to
recognize privilege for communications
with foreign patent practitioners,
including potential benefits and costs. If
you believe such a standard would be
beneficial, please explain what the
scope of a standard should cover.
4. Please explain how U.S.
stakeholders would be impacted by an
international framework establishing
minimum privilege standards in the
courts of member countries for
communications with patent
practitioners in other jurisdictions,
including potential benefits and costs. If
you believe such a framework would be
beneficial, please also address the
following issues:
a. Please identify which jurisdictions
have potential problems and explain the
exact nature of the problem in each of
those jurisdictions.
b. Please explain what the scope of an
international framework for privilege
standards should cover. An example of
such a framework can be found in
Appendix 5 of the following document:
https://www.aippi.org/download/online
Publications/Attachment1Submissionto
WIPODecember182013_SCP.pdf.
5. If a national standard for U.S.
courts to recognize privilege for U.S.
patent agents or foreign practitioners
would be beneficial, please explain how
that standard should be established.
a. If Federal legislation would be
appropriate, what should such
legislation encompass? Please consider
whether the Federal tax preparer-client
privilege legislation, which statutorily
extended attorney-client privilege to
non-lawyer practitioners (e.g., certified
public accountants) under 26 U.S.C.
7525(a), is an appropriate model and
explain why or why not. Are there any
noteworthy parallels or differences
between Federally-registered
accountants and Federally-registered
patent agents in either policy or
operation?
Commenters are requested to include
information identifying how their
organization is impacted by privilege
issues, e.g., whether they are patent
attorneys, agents, owners, licensees, or
any other type of entity.
3. Instructions and Information on the
Public Roundtable
The roundtable will be held on
February 18, 2015, at the United States
Patent and Trademark Office, Madison
Building, 600 Dulany Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314. The
roundtable will begin at 10:00 a.m. and
end at 12:30 p.m. The final agenda and
webcast information will be available a
week before the roundtable on the
USPTO’s Office of Policy and
International Affairs Web site at https://
www.uspto.gov/ip/global/patents/
index.jsp. Pre-registration will be
available from that Web page, or
attendees may register at the door.
The event will be divided into two
portions. The first part will feature a
panel providing background on
privileged communications between
patent practitioners and their clients.
The second part of the event will feature
presentations by various stakeholders
on privileged communications and their
respective positions on this issue. Both
portions will explore both domestic and
international issues relating to these
topics. Here is a preliminary agenda:
Time
Topic
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10:00 to 10:05 a.m ............................................................................................................
10:05 to 11:00 a.m ............................................................................................................
11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m ....................................................................................................
Speakers: Individuals interested in
speaking should submit their name,
contact information (telephone number
and email address), the organization(s)
the person represents, if any, relevant
biographical information, and a few
brief comments on the topics to be
discussed to ACPrivilege@uspto.gov by
February 10, 2015. Selected speakers
will be notified thereafter.
Written Comments: Written comments
can be submitted via the Federal
Register’s Web site,
www.federalregister.gov, or by email to
ACPrivilege@uspto.gov. Comments may
also be submitted by postal mail
addressed to: Mail Stop OPIA, United
States Patent and Trademark Office,
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia
22313–1450, ATTN: Edward Elliott.
Although comments may be submitted
by postal mail, electronic submissions
are encouraged. The deadline for receipt
of written comments for consideration
by the USPTO is February 25, 2015.
Written comments should be identified
in the subject line of the email or postal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:48 Jan 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
3955
Welcome and introduction.
Background panel on privileged communications.
Presentations by interested stakeholders.
mailing as ‘‘Agent-Client Privilege.’’
Because comments will be made
available for public inspection,
information that is not desired to be
made public, such as an address or
phone number, should not be included
in the comments.
Special Accomodations: The
roundtable will be physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Individuals
requiring accommodation, such as sign
language interpretation or other
ancillary aids, should communicate
their needs to Angel Jenkins at the
Office of Policy and International
Affairs, by telephone at (571) 272–9300,
by email at angel.jenkins@uspto.gov, or
by postal mail addressed to: Mail Stop
OPIA, United States Patent and
Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450,
Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450,
ATTN: Angel Jenkins, at least seven (7)
business days prior to the roundtable.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: January 20, 2015.
Michelle K. Lee,
Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark
Office.
[FR Doc. 2015–01241 Filed 1–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew
Collection 3038–0076, Risk
Management Requirements for
Derivatives Clearing Organizations
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or
‘‘CFTC’’) is announcing an opportunity
for public comment on the proposed
collection of certain information by the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3953-3955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01241]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
[Docket No. PTO-C-2014-0066]
Notice of Roundtable and Request for Comments on Domestic and
International Issues Related to Privileged Communications Between
Patent Practitioners and Their Clients
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of roundtable and request for written comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is
seeking input on issues regarding protections from disclosure for
communications between patent applicants and Their advisors. The issues
include: Whether and to what extent U.S. courts should recognize
privilege for communications between foreign patent practitioners and
their clients; the extent to which communications between U.S. patent
applicants and their non-attorney U.S. patent agents should be
privileged in U.S. courts; and whether and to what extent
communications between U.S. patent practitioners and their clients
should receive privilege in foreign jurisdictions. The USPTO is hosting
a roundtable and soliciting written comments to gather information and
views on these questions.
DATES: The roundtable will be held on Wednesday, February 18, 2015. The
roundtable will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 12:30 p.m. Written
comments are due by Wednesday, February 25, 2015, for full
consideration.
ADDRESSES: The roundtable will be held at the United States Patent and
[[Page 3954]]
Trademark Office, Madison Auditorium, Madison Building, 600 Dulany
Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the
roundtable or written comments, please contact Soma Saha or Edward
Elliott at the Office of Policy and International Affairs, by telephone
at (571) 272-9300, by email at ACPrivilege@uspto.gov, or by postal mail
addressed to: Mail Stop OPIA, United States Patent and Trademark
Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450, ATTN: Soma Saha
or Edward Elliott. Please direct all media inquiries to the Office of
the Chief Communications Officer, USPTO, at (571) 272-8400.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Background
Innovators who seek patent protection in multiple jurisdictions may
engage patent practitioners (attorneys or other registered
representatives) in each of those jurisdictions. Currently, there is
little consistency in whether the innovators' communications with their
patent practitioners will be recognized as privileged by courts. The
rules governing privilege vary from country to country and between U.S.
jurisdictions. As a result, innovators may be reluctant to share
critical information with their patent practitioners because the
information may be subject to disclosure in judicial proceedings.
In addition, privilege issues also affect practitioners in the
United States. U.S. district courts have inconsistent rules regarding
the availability and scope of privilege for communications between
clients and their non-attorney U.S. patent agents.
The USPTO is interested in the following topics that focus on three
different aspects of privileged communications affecting U.S. entities.
First, the USPTO is interested in the state of U.S. law with
respect to protecting communications between patent applicants and
their non-U.S. patent practitioners from disclosure in U.S. litigation.
The law in the United States differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Some U.S. courts do not protect communications with foreign
practitioners under any circumstances. Other courts may protect those
communications, but they employ a variety of tests to decide whether
and to what extent to grant privilege. Factors that U.S. courts
consider include: Whether the foreign practitioner acted under the
direction of a U.S. attorney; whether the foreign practitioner would
receive privilege under the laws of the country where the patent
application was filed; and how the competing interests of all involved
jurisdictions are affected. The patchwork of rules between circuits and
districts can make it unclear under which circumstances communications
are privileged.
Second, the USPTO is interested in how foreign courts treat
communications between U.S. patent agents or attorneys and their
clients. Problems arise most frequently in common law jurisdictions,
some of which do not extend privilege to communications between a
patent applicant and foreign patent practitioners. For this reason,
Australia and New Zealand, both common law countries, recently passed
laws extending privilege to foreign patent practitioners who are
authorized to provide patent advice in other countries. Civil law
jurisdictions generally impose professional secrecy obligations that
function similarly to privilege, but secrecy issues appear to arise
less frequently in practice.
Finally, the USPTO is interested in the extent and nature of
protection, if any, that U.S. courts accord to communications between
clients and their non-attorney U.S. patent agents. In the United
States, patent practitioners (whether agents or attorneys) must be
registered to practice before the USPTO, e.g., to prosecute patent
applications as an applicant's representative. In order to register,
both types of practitioners must demonstrate certain legal, scientific,
and technical qualifications and pass a registration exam. However,
patent agents, unlike patent attorneys, are not required to be
separately licensed to practice law. Communications between U.S. patent
agents and their clients are treated differently by various U.S.
district courts, which follow their own precedents with respect to
whether the communications are privileged. Some district courts have
denied privilege altogether for patent agents, while other courts have
granted privilege to agents only when their work is overseen by an
attorney. Still others have recognized privilege only for
communications with an agent regarding activities before the USPTO, or
only when the communications concern a related adversarial process.
To address the lack of uniformity for potentially privileged
communications discussed above, the possibility of developing an
international minimum standard for recognizing privileged
communications between clients and patent practitioners has been
considered in recent years by the Standing Committee on the Law of
Patents (SCP) at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
Those discussions have resulted in a compilation of relevant laws in
WIPO member countries on this issue. For more information, please see
WIPO document SCP/20/9, ``Confidentiality of Communications between
Clients and their Patent Advisors: Compilation of Laws, Practices and
other Information,'' available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/patent_policy/en/scp_20/scp_20_9.pdf. This document also contains a
summary of U.S. law on this issue. Separately, several industry
organizations from the United States and Europe have proposed an
international framework that they believe would help mitigate some of
the uncertainty that exists in the current system. A copy of their
proposed framework can be found at: https://www.aippi.org/download/onlinePublications/Attachment1SubmissiontoWIPODecember182013_SCP.pdf.
The USPTO is conducting this public roundtable to solicit comments
from interested parties on protecting confidential communications
between innovators and their patent practitioner representatives. The
number of participants in the roundtable is limited to ensure that all
speakers have a meaningful opportunity to present their views. Those
who wish to participate in the roundtable should submit a written
request, per the instructions below. Members of the public who wish to
attend and observe the roundtable need not submit a request.
Anyone may submit written comments for consideration by the USPTO
on issues relevant to this notice or raised at the roundtable. The
USPTO plans to make the roundtable available via webcast. Webcast
information will be available on the USPTO's Web site before the
roundtable. The written comments and list of the roundtable
participants and their associations will be available from the USPTO's
Web site.
2. Issues for Public Comment
The topics and questions listed below reflect particular issues for
which the USPTO would appreciate receiving input from interested
stakeholders. Responses are not restricted to these topics; comments
may provide any information the submitter wishes the USPTO to consider.
The questions should not be taken as an indication that the USPTO has
taken a position or is predisposed to any particular views.
1. Please explain the impact, if any, resulting from inconsistent
treatment of privilege rules among U.S. federal courts. In your answer,
please identify if the impact is on communications with
[[Page 3955]]
foreign, domestic, or both types of patent practitioners.
2. Please explain how U.S. stakeholders would be impacted by a
national standard for U.S. courts to recognize privilege for
communications with U.S. patent agents, including potential benefits
and costs. If you believe such a standard would be beneficial, please
explain what the scope of a national standard should cover.
3. Please explain how U.S. stakeholders would be impacted by a
national standard for U.S. courts to recognize privilege for
communications with foreign patent practitioners, including potential
benefits and costs. If you believe such a standard would be beneficial,
please explain what the scope of a standard should cover.
4. Please explain how U.S. stakeholders would be impacted by an
international framework establishing minimum privilege standards in the
courts of member countries for communications with patent practitioners
in other jurisdictions, including potential benefits and costs. If you
believe such a framework would be beneficial, please also address the
following issues:
a. Please identify which jurisdictions have potential problems and
explain the exact nature of the problem in each of those jurisdictions.
b. Please explain what the scope of an international framework for
privilege standards should cover. An example of such a framework can be
found in Appendix 5 of the following document: https://www.aippi.org/download/onlinePublications/Attachment1SubmissiontoWIPODecember182013_SCP.pdf.
5. If a national standard for U.S. courts to recognize privilege
for U.S. patent agents or foreign practitioners would be beneficial,
please explain how that standard should be established.
a. If Federal legislation would be appropriate, what should such
legislation encompass? Please consider whether the Federal tax
preparer-client privilege legislation, which statutorily extended
attorney-client privilege to non-lawyer practitioners (e.g., certified
public accountants) under 26 U.S.C. 7525(a), is an appropriate model
and explain why or why not. Are there any noteworthy parallels or
differences between Federally-registered accountants and Federally-
registered patent agents in either policy or operation?
Commenters are requested to include information identifying how
their organization is impacted by privilege issues, e.g., whether they
are patent attorneys, agents, owners, licensees, or any other type of
entity.
3. Instructions and Information on the Public Roundtable
The roundtable will be held on February 18, 2015, at the United
States Patent and Trademark Office, Madison Building, 600 Dulany
Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. The roundtable will begin at 10:00
a.m. and end at 12:30 p.m. The final agenda and webcast information
will be available a week before the roundtable on the USPTO's Office of
Policy and International Affairs Web site at https://www.uspto.gov/ip/global/patents/index.jsp. Pre-registration will be available from that
Web page, or attendees may register at the door.
The event will be divided into two portions. The first part will
feature a panel providing background on privileged communications
between patent practitioners and their clients. The second part of the
event will feature presentations by various stakeholders on privileged
communications and their respective positions on this issue. Both
portions will explore both domestic and international issues relating
to these topics. Here is a preliminary agenda:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Topic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10:00 to 10:05 a.m.................. Welcome and introduction.
10:05 to 11:00 a.m.................. Background panel on privileged communications.
11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m............. Presentations by interested stakeholders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speakers: Individuals interested in speaking should submit their
name, contact information (telephone number and email address), the
organization(s) the person represents, if any, relevant biographical
information, and a few brief comments on the topics to be discussed to
ACPrivilege@uspto.gov by February 10, 2015. Selected speakers will be
notified thereafter.
Written Comments: Written comments can be submitted via the Federal
Register's Web site, www.federalregister.gov, or by email to
ACPrivilege@uspto.gov. Comments may also be submitted by postal mail
addressed to: Mail Stop OPIA, United States Patent and Trademark
Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450, ATTN: Edward
Elliott. Although comments may be submitted by postal mail, electronic
submissions are encouraged. The deadline for receipt of written
comments for consideration by the USPTO is February 25, 2015. Written
comments should be identified in the subject line of the email or
postal mailing as ``Agent-Client Privilege.'' Because comments will be
made available for public inspection, information that is not desired
to be made public, such as an address or phone number, should not be
included in the comments.
Special Accomodations: The roundtable will be physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodation, such
as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, should
communicate their needs to Angel Jenkins at the Office of Policy and
International Affairs, by telephone at (571) 272-9300, by email at
angel.jenkins@uspto.gov, or by postal mail addressed to: Mail Stop
OPIA, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450,
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450, ATTN: Angel Jenkins, at least seven
(7) business days prior to the roundtable.
Dated: January 20, 2015.
Michelle K. Lee,
Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2015-01241 Filed 1-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P