10 PTC Newsl. 1 (1991-1992)

handle is hein.journals/iprolane10 and id is 1 raw text is: 





NOWSLOTT8R

Published by the
Section of Patent, Trademap an Copyright Law
of the American Bar AssociatiCo
Volume 10, Number 1, FaT 19-


CHaiR'S LOTT8R


  I am writing this to you im-
mediately following the Sec-
tion Officers' Conference,
which was held in Chicago,
September 11-13, 1991. The
Section Officers' Conference
was well attended by the Of-
ficers of our PTC Section. 1
have attended that conference
for the two previous years as
well, and I found that this par-
ticular conference was more        Bill Pravel
informative and helpful from the standpoint of Section
activities than any of the prior ones. In addition to the
program of the Section Officers' Conference itself, our
Section had a meeting of the Officers to discuss which
of the Resolutions that were approved at the Annual
Meeting in Atlanta should be considered for blanket
authority or ABA approval by the House of Delegates.
We agreed that we would submit for blanket authority,
Resolutions 101-3 and 4; 202-1; 405-1, 2 and 4; and
1001-1. After further investigation, Resolutions 101-
1 and 1002-3 may also be considered for blanket au-
thority (See the Resolutions article on page 3.)
  Also, as I will discuss more in detail below, a report
from our Section to the PTO Advisory Commission
was prepared and submitted, setting forth our Sec-
tion's position on the issues raised by the Commis-
sion, based upon the authority we had through the
Resolutions passed at our 1991 Annual Meeting, as
well as past Resolutions relating to the issues. To do
that, it was necessary to get blanket authority on an
expedited basis. As a result, we obtained the blanket
authority for the pertinent past and 1991 Resolutions.
When blanket authority is obtained by the expedited
procedure, the authority lasts for only ninety days.
Therefore, to have the blanket authority in effect for
the full two-year period, it is necessary to resubmit
those 1991 Resolutions, and it was agreed to do that
for the following Resolutions: 102-1; 108-2, 3, and
4; 403-7, 8, and 9; 651-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9; and
655-1. In behalf of the Section Officers, I would also
note with thanks that Committee 607, chaired by Sam
Helfgott, provided us with the initial recommenda-
tions with respect to which of the 1991 Resolutions


should be considered for blanket authopit-y or Hpuse
of Delegates' approval.
  After obtaining blanket authority, the Section is au-
thorized by the ABA to present its views to Congress,
the USPTO, the Copyright Office, and other govern-
mental bodies. The Section, of course, must make it
clear that the position stated is not that of the ABA,
but is strictly a Section position. If full ABA authority
is thought to be necessary or desirable for any partic-
ular Resolution, the Resolution must be submitted so
that it is specifically authorized by the House of Del-
egates or the Board of Governors. It was decided by
the Section Officers that none of the Resolutions ap-
proved at our 1991 Annual Meeting required full ABA
approval at this time. Some of the other 1991 Reso-
lutions that have not been submitted for blanket au-
thority at this time may later be submitted if legislative
action occurs, or if there is reason to need blanket
authority to speak in behalf of the Section.

1991-92 Goals
  One of the salutary benefits of the Section Officers
Conference, from my standpoint, was the request that
each Section Chair express his or her goals for the
Section during the 1991-92 year. After giving the
matter considerable thought last August, when that
request was made, I submitted the following items as
my goals as your Section Chair for 1991-92:
     1. To the extent permitted by the new Amicus
  Brief Guidelines, to encourage amicus briefs before
  the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals with respect
  to important patent issues before the court so that
  the American Bar Association will have some im-
  pact in the patent law area.
    2. To the extent the Section authorizes and ABA
  approval permits, to present to the international
  harmonization efforts the American Bar Associa-
  tion's positions in the field of intellectual property
  law.
     3. To have the PTC Section consider whether the
  time has come for the name of the Section to be
  changed to Intellectual Property Law Section.
     4. To the extent permitted by the votes of the
   Section and ABA approval, to have our ABA view-
   point presented to the United States Trade Repre-


Copyright © 1991 American Bar Association                                    Produced by the ABA Press


Copyright @ 1991 American Bar Association


Produced by the ABA Press

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?