Tafas v. Dudas et al

Filing 173

AMICUS Brief in Support plaintiffs 135 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 133 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Polestar Capital Associates, LLC, Norseman Group, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8)(Franco, Craig) Modified text on 12/31/2007 (klau, ). Modified on 1/9/2008 to reflect Amicus Brief (klau, ).

Tafas v. Dudas et al

Doc. 173 Att. 4

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 173-5

Filed 12/27/2007

Page 1 of 5

Exhibit 4
Excerpt from notice and comment Letter of Dean Alderucci (May 3, 2006)

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 173-5

Filed 12/27/2007

Page 2 of 5

A001572

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 173-5

Filed 12/27/2007

Page 3 of 5

e v i d e n c e . F u r t h e r , t h e y d o s o a c c o r d i n g t o s t a n d a r d s t h a t are c l e a r l y c o n t r a r y t o l a w a n d b e y o n d statutory authority i n regard t o filing and receiving priority for continuations and may b e contrary to law a n d b e y o n d a g e n c y a u t h o r i t y i n r e g a r d t o d o u b l e patenting. T h e f a c t t h a t the a g e n c y i s s h i f t i n g the b u r d e n w i t h o u t c l e a r l y i d e n t i f y i n g t h e s t a n d a r d f o r s u c h d e t e r m i n a t i o n s i t s e l f d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e arbitrary and capricious nature o f t h e rulemaking, given t h a t the failure to provide prior notice o f t h e standards for rejecting continuation applications has already b e e n found to violate Section 120. See I n re Henricksen. 399 F.2d a t 261-62; 71 Fed. Reg. at 50 ( " I n addition, in those earlier cases the Office had n o t promulgated any rules, l e t alone given t h e public adequate notice of, or an opportunity to respond to, the a d h o c l i m i t s i m p o s e d ) ( c i t i n g Henriksen, a t 3 9 9 F . 2 d a t 2 6 1 - 6 2 ) .

A s the U . S . C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e F e d e r a l C i r c u i t h a s r e p e a t e d l y n o t e d , t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s rulemaking authority u n d e r 35 U S C § 2(a) to promulgate rules governing the " c o n d u c t o f proceedings" does not provide for substantive l a w m a k i n g authority. Section 2(a) (formerly Section 6) authority " i s d i r e c t e d t o t h e ' c o n d u c t o f p r o c e e d i n g s ' b e f o r e t h e O f f i c e . A s u b s t a n t i v e d e c l a r a t i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o the C o m m i s s i o n d s interpretation o f the p a t e n t statutes, w h e t h e r i t b e section 101, 102, 103, 112 or other section, does n o t fall within the usual interpretation o f such statutory language. See, e.g., General Elec. Co .. Inc. v. Gilbert. 429 U.S. 125, 141 & n. 20, 97 S.C!. 401, 410 & n. 20, 50 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976) ( E E O C g u i d e l i n e i n t e r p r e t i n g T i t l e V I I o f t h e C i v i l R i g h t s A c t n o t w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y to ' i s s u e ... suitable procedural regulations to carry o u t t h e provisions o f the subchapter,' 4 2 U.S.C. § 2 0 0 0 e - 1 2 ( a ) . T h a t is n o t t o s a y t h a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r d o e s n o t h a v e a u t h o r i t y t o i s s u e s u c h a N o t i c e but, i f not issued u n d e r the statutory grant, the N o t i c e c a n n o t possibly have the force and effect o f law." A n i m a l L e g a l D e f e n s e F u n d v. Q u i g g , 9 3 2 F . 2 d 9 2 0 , 9 3 0 ( F e d . Cir. 1 9 9 1 ) . S i m i l a r l y , " i t does not g r a n t the Commissioner the authority t o i s s u e substantive rules .. _. Because Congress has not vested the C o m m i s s i o n e r w i t h any general substantive ru1emaking power, the [action] at issue i n this case cannot possibly h a v e t h e "force and effect o f l a w . " M e r c k & Co., I n c . v. Kessler, 8 0 F.3d 1 5 4 3 , 1 5 5 0 ( F e d . Cir. 1 9 9 6 ) ( c i t i n g A n i m a l L e g a l D e f e n s e Fund, 9 3 2 F . 2 d a t 9 3 0 a n d Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 302, 99 S.C!. 1 7 0 5 , 1 7 1 8 , 6 0 L.Ed.2d 208 ( 1 9 7 9 ) .

EXHIBIT A From: Clarke, R o b e r t [ R o b e r t . C l a r k e @ U S P T O . G O V ] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 12:54 P M To: Alderucci, D e a n - Cantor Fitzgerald Subject: RE: W e d o n o t h a v e a c o m p l e t e p a c k a g e o f s u p p o r t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s a v a i l a b l e for p u b l i c i n s p e c t i o n . T h e s t u d y for t h e s e p a c k a g e s w a s s u b s t a n t i a t e d i n a series o f p r e - d e c i s i o n a l e l e c t r o n i c c o m m u n i c a t i o n s that has not been made available to the public. Robert A. Clarke Deputy Director
A001592

5/5/06

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ
Office o f P a t e n t Legal Administration 571 2 7 2 7 7 3 5

Document 173-5

Filed 12/27/2007

Page 4 of 5

-----Original Message----. From: A l d e r u c c i , D e a n - C a n t o r F i t z g e r a l d [ m a i l t o : : Q A l d e m c c i @ c a n t o r . c o m ] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 12:49 P M To: Clarke, R o b e r t Subject:

M a y 3, 2006 Robert Clarke Deputy Director Office o f P a t e n t Legal A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Office o f t h e Deputy Commissioner f o r P a t e n t E x a m i n a t i o n P o l i c y U.S. Patent and Trademark Office D e a r Bob, T h a n k s v e r y m u c h f o r r e t u r n i n g m y call this m o r n i n g . I was looking for anything else that might b e i n the "rules docket" (Docket No. 2005-P-066 and -067) for t h e P T O ' s proposed rules. You mentioned t h a t there w a s no actual docket. From this I understand that there is no other supporting documents, studies, etc. for the proposed rules - j u s t t h e n o t i c e s t h e m s e l v e s i n t h e F e d e r a l Register.

I f this is true, please confirm my understanding. I f I have misunderstood, please contact me.
B e s t regards, Dean A l d e m c c i (212) 8 2 9 - 7 0 0 9 ( o f f i c e ) [phone] (direct fax)

5/5/06

A001593

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 173-5

Filed 12/27/2007

Page 5 of 5

A001594