Welcome to our community.

In this community, you can submit ideas, vote on existing ideas, or add comments.

To submit an idea, please click the Submit New Idea button at the top of the navigation sidebar. You will then be asked to add a title and choose a campaign for the new idea. You will also have the option to add tags to the idea. To vote on an idea, simply click the up or down arrows to the right of the idea title/description. And to add a comment, click in the box below the idea.

If you would like to see all ideas created with a specific tag, you can click on the word or phrase via the tagcloud in the navigation sidebar area under "What we're discussing". You can also view ideas sorted by Campaigns from the right navigation area. To return to this page, click the All Ideas link.

Standard Protective Order

Don't exclude inside counsel

Inside counsel should presumptively be treated like outside counsel, not like parties. The general legal principle is that inside counsel are lawyer and like outside counsel to be trusted with trade secrets as long as they can show that they act as lawyers and do not have a hybrid business/legal role. The model protective order should reflect that.

Submitted by

Voting

2 up votes
0 down votes

Standard Protective Order

Protective Orders and Attorneys' Eyes Only (AEO)

Never been a fan of AEO provisions in protective orders unless parties (not counsel) were willing to affirm the information as a trade secret. The categories of "highly confidential" or "commercially sensitive" information are too vague to be subject to any meaningful analysis and the opportunity to over-designate is too great, and the consequences of this can be very real, preventing clients or third-parties from assisting ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

0 up votes
0 down votes

Standard Protective Order

Disagree with In-House Counsel and Overdesignation sections

Norvell IP appreciates the opportunity to submit comments to the PTO’s proposed changes to the TTAB Standard Protective Order. Our comments are as follows: 1. We disagree with automatically excluding in-house counsel from access to Attorneys’ Eyes Only information. Many in-house attorneys handle TM enforcement proceedings directly and as attorneys they are bound by ethical obligations to maintain the confidential ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

0 up votes
0 down votes

Standard Protective Order

Enforcement

If we are reacting to the version of the Standard Protective agreement in its form about six months ago, I would not permit in-house counsel to keep archival copies of an opponent's confidential or attorneys only information after the case terminates, no matter what. I would also add a provision that the agreement can be enforced in US District Court. If it is believed that there is a potential problem with a breach ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

0 up votes
0 down votes

Standard Protective Order

Standard Protective Order

I have to say that your comment site and procedure are utterly baffling. I have no idea whether I am actually commenting on what I want to comment on. I think that the Standard Protective Order concept is a good one. However, I have several issues based on my experience as both in-house and as outside counsel. If a party to a Board proceeding wants to be represented by in-house counsel that is fine with me. But I ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

0 up votes
0 down votes

Standard Protective Order

Standard Protective Order

I have to say that your comment site and procedure are utterly baffling. I have no idea whether I am actually commenting on what I want to comment on. I think that the Standard Protective Order concept is a good one. However, I have several issues based on my experience as both in-house and as outside counsel. If a party to a Board proceeding wants to be represented by in-house counsel that is fine with me. But I ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

0 up votes
0 down votes

Displaying 1 - 7 of 15 Ideas