Patent Law

Tossed

By Gary Odom and Jordan Kuhn

Asokkumar Pal looked away from the screen and wiped his eyes. He was tired. He'd been with the agency 25 years. A long haul. Now it had crumbled away, as if he was a wad of paper, to be used and tossed. It wasn't right. He did the best he could. His resolve stiffened. He would not go quietly.

Pal v. Dept. of Commerce (CAFC 2008-3213) non-precedential

It was a long way down. Twenty-two "outstanding" performance evaluations. Two "commendable". Now only the last one mattered: "unacceptable."

Pal had trained examiners, taught the bible, MPEP, and knew the important bits by heart. A registered patent agent. The qualifications didn't matter.

The end of the line was at a pinnacle of quality assurance: reviewing and grading examiners' work. Put on probation in 2005. Then they picked 16 cases, a smattering, to find fault with. Six errors. 37.5%. Unacceptable. Others had slid by with a 50% error rate. But Pal: canned. By a woman who couldn't even understand the technology. They even misapplied the law. Pal gnashed his teeth.

Pal took it to the Patent Office review board. They just played the tiniest violin they had: sympathy.

[I]t is extremely unfortunate that the agency could not have found another position for the Appellant, who seems to have many talents and has been a successful Federal employee for most of his lengthy career.

Tell it to the judge. As if they cared. With their "highly deferential standard of review." The Court of Appeals didn't play armchair quarterback to the government, they ruled. Not unless they wanted to, Pal mused. Rigged. But not for Pal.

Full post as published by The Patent Prospector on December 17, 2008 (boomark / email).