Patent Information Users Group, Inc.

Thank you for replying Frazer.  It is true this applies only to US based patent information professionals.  I like the QPIP exam but when it was being debated I argued that it was putting the cart before the horse,  Recognition by the govt that the function is valuable would be the horse.  Also, I chose not to grandfather in when that option was available because of the tech requirement.  Neither Japan nor Canada have a tech requirement to practice patent law so why should QPIP for searchers.

Robert

Hello again members,

I've been silent for awhile but that is due to the turmoil that the Country has experienced at the national level the past four year.  Overt that time Congress and the PTO have been silent on patent reform.  That is now changing.  Patrick Leahy has resumed his former position as Chairman of the Senate Intellectual Property Committee and he has said the patent quality will again be his focus. 

Last month the Patent Office through the Office of Enrollment and Discipline put out a Request for Comments regarding the General Requirement Bulletin (GRB).  This request is yet another opportunity to advance the search profession.

I've argued for a long time that that the GBR is the biggest obstacle to the development of our profession because the GRB directly tethers what we do to the patent attorney. 

Comments are due on  5/24/2021.  I am circulating this letter among my colleagues who are not PIUG members and am getting positive feedback.  I am posting the letter here today in the event any PIUG members who are intellectual property researchers would like to cosign.

Thank you

Robert