Comments on: A First Report On The USPTO’s Continuing Legal Education System (CEP)

By: Babel Boy

Babel Boy — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:53:39 +0000

I volunteered, too, but my experience wasn’t as positive. I thought the organization was more like the typical EFS screw-ups. Navigation was poorly organized. For instance in some cases you were required to find and hit a link that was a .0005 font size.

You would think in this day and age there would be mandatory jail-time for any systems analyst who doesn’t accommodate Firefox.

But, as with the EFS guys, the gentleman I contacted at PTO was very friendly and very helpful.

The content and delivery were pretty good.

A number of state bar CLE providers are offering content for patent practitioners. It would be a no-brainer for the PTO to authorize that content for PTO credit. This in-house CLE program is obviously just another income-generating scam by the PTO.

By: mike

mike — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:53:50 +0000

I am also not in favor of yet another set of CLE requirements, in addition to those imposed by states. I leave that debate for my readers and for another time, however.

By: Another User

Another User — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:47:27 +0000

I also was a volunteer. While the content was interesting since it was from the PTO’s perspective, the KSR course provided much less information than other CLE courses on the same topic. The other two topics were quite good.

Unless the PTO’s CLE is also good for a state’s CLE requirements, I am against another government agency requiring CLE. If it does become a mandatory requirement, then practitioners shouldn’t have to pay for the PTO’s version of CLE.