Patent Lawyer Sends Spirited Letter to the US Patent Office

Seldom does E-TIPS® report on correspondence from a patent lawyer to address an examiner’s objections to a patent application. Usually this is just as well, because correspondence arguing the patentability of an application is often technical and unexciting. However, patent lawyer Andrew Schroeder’s recent letter to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can be described as many things, though probably not technical or unexciting. After his client’s application for a telescoping tripod sprinkler cart was rejected, Mr. Schroeder sent the examiner an acrimonious response, which questioned how the examiner reviewed his client’s application:

Are you drunk? No, seriously … are you drinking scotch and whiskey with a side of crack cocaine while you "examine" patent applications? (Heavy emphasis on the quotes.) Do you just mail merge rejection letters from your home? Is that what taxpayers are getting in exchange for your services? Have you even read the patent application? I'm curious. Because you either haven't read the patent application or are … (I don't want to say the "R" word) "Special."

Schroeder’s response went on to question whether an alternate approach would be preferred by the USPTO:

Since when did the USPTO become a post World War II jobs program? What's the point of hiring 2,000 additional examiners when 2,000 rubber stamps would suffice just fine? So, tell me something Corky…what would it take for a patent application to be approved? Do we have to write patent applications in crayon? Does a patent application have to come with some sort of pop-up book? Do you have to be a family member or some big law firm who incentivizes you with some other special deal? What does it take Corky?

It seems unlikely that the examiner would require the application to be prepared in crayon or for the application to be accompanied with a pop-up book. Neither is a requirement of, or even recommended by, the USPTO. Schroeder’s letter was available as part of the file history for his client’s application on the USPTO’s web site, but has since been removed. Prior to being removed, the body of the letter was reproduced by Dennis Crouch, Associate Professor at University of Missouri School of Law, on his blog. Schroeder has created a web site to respond to Crouch’s blog post, and which includes a number of remarks about Mr. Crouch, which many will think are excessive and unnecessary, and which are quite possibly defamatory. Does anyone out there continue to think patent practice is boring? Summary by: Adam Lis