The Civil War having given an impetus to creative genius as applied to the useful arts, entirely without precedent, it was to the problems of this period that the tenth Commissioner of Patents turned his attention, his term of office being recognized as one of the most important, in one aspect, in the history of the Patent Office.


Patent Holder’s Equitable Remedies in Patent Infringement Actions Before Federal Courts and the International Trade Commission

Richard L. Stroup, Susan Tull, Mindy Ehrenfried

A United States patent grants the patent holder the right to exclude others from practicing the claimed inventions within the territorial limits of the United States. When its patent is infringed, the patent holder can seek remedies in the form of monetary recoveries or equitable relief. This article addresses the equitable relief the federal courts or the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) can grant. That relief can be in the form of injunctions, orders, or even monetary awards, granted in equity.

The patent statute provides that an issued patent "shall contain … a grant to the patentee of the right to exclude others." It provides that the federal courts “may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity.” And for actions before the ITC, the statute provides that that Commission “shall” enter an exclusion order, after a trial finding a violation, and “may” enter a preliminary order, before trial–if in both instances the patent holder can prove it has a domestic industry in the United States and the public interests or the President’s review do not preclude entry of such injunctive relief.



The war-time commissioner was David P. Holloway, the ninth incumbent of that office.

Holloway was born in Waynesville, Ohio, on December 6, 1809. With his parents he moved in 1813 to Cincinnati where he attended the common schools. He learned the printer's trade at Richmond, Indiana, and for four years worked on the Cincinnati "Gazette". In 1832 he established the Richmond "Palladium" and was its editor for several years.

President Lincoln appointed him Commissioner of Patents on March 28, 1861, which position he held until August 17, 1865. During his term a number of procedural changes occurred in the patent laws, due, no doubt, largely to the efforts of others who preceded him. The act of March 2, 1861, establishing a permanent board of Examiners-in-Chief, was passed just before his administration began. (It may be noted that the permanent board first appointed by Commissioner Holt and established by the act of 1861 was found satisfactory in many respects though Commissioner Holloway criticized it on the ground that it had increased the work of the Commissioner instead of decreasing it, and recommended that its decision should be made merely advisory, the Commissioner to adopt them or not as he should see fit, whereby there would be but two appeals, i.e., from the primary examiner to the Commissioner, and from him to the Court.) This permanent Board of Examiners-in-Chief found great favor with applicants and attorneys.


Karen J. Dean Earns 2017 Leadership In Action Award from the Partnership for Public Service and the Leadership Alumni Board for Spearheading USPTO's Office of the Ombudsman 

Alexander Sofocleous

In May of 2016, the United States Patent & Trademark Office launched a pilot program for the USPTOs Office of the Ombudsman. The programs success was huge and, as a result, the Office was made permanent as of January 2017. The purpose behind the Office of the Ombudsman is to provide a neutral/impartial, independent, confidential, and informal resource to USPTO staff (e.g., employees, supervisors, senior executives, political appointees) for discussing any individual workplace concern or systemic issue. By providing a medium, like no other at USPTO, the Office of the Ombudsman helps, inter alia, provide Agency leadership with unfiltered information regarding persistent or systemic issues and provide expert conflict resolution services through facilitated discussions. The Office served more than 350 employees and provided the medium to raise issues about conflicts with between co-workers, disputes and poor communication between employees and their managers, concerns about performance appraisals, lack of respect and bullying.



Less than one year out of the long and colorful political career of Philip Francis Thomas was spent in the service of the Patent Office.

A native of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, he was born in Easton on September 12, 1810. Leaving the beaten political track of his Whig ancestors, he became a Democrat and was for half a century more or less active in Maryland politics. The son of a doctor, he studied law at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, was admitted to the bar in 1831, and at the age of 24 plunged into Maryland politics, finally getting himself elected to the legislature.


Global Patent Litigation: How and Where to Win, 2nd Edition

Asha Puttaiah

How does one decide where to sue if litigations can be contemplated in multiple countries? Consider a corporation with a national patent in a designated economic regional forum whose international competitor own a legal (but later) patent in their own country - what is the end goal of the corporation? Market entry or ownership? What are the chances of success? For that matter, what is considered success? Invalidation? Infringement? Licensing potential? The answers are ‘I don’t know,’ ‘Kind of, ‘No,’ and ‘Maybe’ – in any order you wish, There is no simple answer.


Waymo vs. Uber My Be the next Edison vs. Westinghouse

Chloé Margulis and Charles Goulding

During the late 1800’s, significant debate resulted from the development of new electric power supply systems. Whereas Thomas Edison supported growth of DC, direct current, supply, competitor George Westinghouse worked to make AC, alternating current, more widespread in both rural and urban settings. This War of Currents is mimicked in the current clash between Google and Uber over LiDAR technology in self-driving vehicles. The study discusses implications concerning Google vs. Uber and a comparison of this case to Edison vs. Westinghouse, its predecessor. A comparison is made between the similar decisions and actions of Nikola Tesla and Anthony Levandowski, both of whom left one company to work on personal technological ventures before being bought out by another company. An analysis is conducted concerning patents owned by Google, potential patent infringements, and the impact this case will have on our future, the growth of technology and autonomous vehicles, and intellectual property law.



The seventh Commissioner of Patents, William Darius Bishop, was descended from old New England stock, his original ancestor, Rev. John Bishop, having emigrated from England about 1640. Alfred Bishop, his father, was a native of Connecticut, where he followed his duties as an extensive canal and railroad contractor. Commissioner Bishop was born at Bloomfield, New Jersey, September 14, 1827, while his parents were temporary residents of that state; but he returned to Bridgeport, Connecticut, which became his permanent residence.

© 2000-2014, Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society
Disclaimer & Privacy Policy