Nick writes "Looks like a group of patent lawyers and inventors are suing the US Secretary of Commerce to block the appointment of an "unqualified" person to the spot of Deputy Director of the USPTO, claiming its an abuse of the Secretary's discretion. There are two ways to look at this: either it's a noble attempt to ensure the right people are in place to oversee the patent and trademark office and to keep out political hacks, or (as Techdirt might see it) an attempt by patent people to keep their business protected from outsiders. Whether or not this person's appointment should be blocked based on her background as a legislative adviser on IP issues seems debatable, but she apparently has never drafted a patent or trademark application before, which allegedly doesn't jive with the requirement that the Deputy Director have 'professional experience and background in patent or trademark law.' The suit does ask the District Court in DC to clarify exactly what qualifies as patent or trademark background, so maybe some good will come out of it. But it also begs the question: is the backlog and confusion in the patent office the result of bad management there or the result of a community of insulated patent specialists that want to assert their importance in the new info economy?"

Nick's analysis is pretty thorough, so there's not much for us to add. We have no doubt that there have been some bad appointees to the USPTO, but it's not clear this lawsuit is the way to go about fixing these problems. The people bringing the lawsuit definitely do note the rise in bad patents being granted, though it's hard to blame that on an appointee from two months ago. This does highlight that this particular appointment does seem more politically motivated than based on real knowledge and experience with the patent system -- but it's not at all clear how having a patent attorney who has experience drafting patents would necessarily make the system any better. In fact, just as it has been a problem for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, those who come out of a background of being patent attorneys tend to favor more patents, rather than better patents (not always true, but there's enough evidence suggesting that it's pretty common). Since the goal of the USPTO should be to foster innovation, shouldn't the criteria not be experience with patents and trademarks, but experience with actual innovation and the economic impact of innovation?