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 (@klandsman)

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Standard Protective Order

Protective Order Review

Is there a short description of why this review is now initiated? Anything specific TTAB considers needs review, general feeling of quasi-sunsetting standing orders? Else?

Submitted by (@voyer0)

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

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 (@wesfewsc)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

1202 Filing an Appeal

TMBP in HTML with hyperlinks

Surely TTAB has under consideration providing a hyperlinked online browser searchable version of the TBMP rather than the pdf searchable format now present. If not, this should be a top priority item in view of the increasing number of pro se petitioners and respondents in Oppositions and Cancellations. The pdf version is cumbersome even for attorneys such a me. If the MPEP can be provided in such a format, there is no ...more »

Submitted by (@bruceburdick)

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

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 (@kathleenebrennan)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

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 (@dbrezina)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

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 (@paul00)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

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 (@paul00)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

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 (@paul00)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

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 (@paul00)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

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 (@paul00)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active