News & Media

Patent Bar v. “Trademark Bar”

I have always found it annoying that no matter how smart you are, how much you might know, or whatever other circumstances might exist, lawyers are not permitted to take the Patent Bar exam unless they meet certain educational requirements that have NOTHING to do with patent law, nor to do with law at all. In fact, you can be admitted to the patent bar even if you don't have a law degree, are not admitted to practice law anywhere else, or even if you are disbarred. The requirements are available here. Essentially, it boils down to this: In order to be admitted to the Patent Bar, you need a bachelor's degree (or about two years of course work) in some science or engineering field. Why? The assumption is that because drafting patent claims requires a fundamental understanding of the technology involved, only someone who has science or engineering background can do it. I strongly disagree with that assumption. The Patent Bar exam has no science or engineering questions on it, you can litigate patent cases in any court in the land without a Patent Bar admission, and I don't know a single patent attorney who will claim that he or she needed that education in order to prosecute patent applications. So, that's annoying enough. I joust at enough windmills, so I'm not taking on that cause. For the time being, lets just accept arguendo that the Patent Bar requirements are well-founded. Here's the axe I am grinding -- the false impression that licensure before the USPTO gives to lawyers and to the public.