Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patent jock


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was no consensus. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Patent jock
Neologism? Google only tells about the Patent "Jock Back" G-String. Punkmorten 21:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC) Gents, I assure you that "Patent Jock" is not a coined term or a made up word. This term describes a type of patent attorney, and is known most frequently in the patent bar circles. Indeed, in my firm we frequently used this term to denote a patent attorney skilled in the practice of patent law. I first learned of this term several years ago while studying law. I understand Wikipedia's concerns regarding the delisting of new, coined terms, but Patent Jock does not fall in this category. Also, I am not so sure that measuring a term's worth by a google search should be the test for deletion in Wikipedia. For that matter, what is the test (or standard) that one needs to maintan an entry in Wikipedia? Do you need several entries from other folks attesting to the existense of "Patent Jock"? If so, please let me know. Additionally, please let me know what other evidence you need so that the "Patent Jock" wikipedia entry survives the current delisting onslaught. Further, I plan to further edit the "Patent Jock" entry to further define what the term means and would like to know what additional information I can provide to ensure that you do not delist this term. Many thanks.Jhyancey 11:45 PM ET, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could not find any reference to "one who is skilled in the practice of patent law". Shawnc 01:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A reputable source that asserts the existence of the term should be provided. Please refer to Cite sources, Deletion policy and No original research. Shawnc 17:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, unless verified. Stifle 21:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

As a patent attorney, I think I can speak on this topic.

Shawnc, with all due respect, one who is skilled in the practice of patent law is a great definition of a patent jock. It builds on the standard for reviewing whether a patent is novel and non-obviousness; the government imposes this standard on patent prosecuters or pro se applicants before granting or issuing a patent. Thus, one who is skilled in the practice of patent law is capable of drafting patent applications.

A patent jock not only prosecutes patent applications before the USPTO, but has the skill to litigate patents, and review patents for potential infringement. It is often necessary for a patent jock to have a science background, as being a patent agent or patent attorney requires the same.

I believe I even have seen this term in print; it may have been in a novel having a patent agent or patent attorney as a character. I recognize the term as being used often in Boston, Atlanta, Los Angeles and New York patent circles.

After a quick google search, I found the following:

http://www.bakerbotts.com/9/infocenter/publications/Detail.aspx?id=98609148-a306-4faa-8b42-1f0e376f15d0

http://www.patentjock.com/ --Patentgeek 21:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Verified, Do not Delete.

Additional evidence from a US Patent Law Professor: Patent Jock: An attorney registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and practicing patent law as a vocation. Patent Jocks are an elite and tiny fragment of all United States attorneys. Patent Jocks are recognized for their rare skill and extraordinary intellect. The origin of the term is not clear but was practiced as early as 1990 by Paul S. Angello of Stoel Rives Boley Jones and Grey, Portland, Oregon. Posted by Jhyancey 12:45 PM ET, 12 December 2005 (UTC) on behalf of US Patent Law Professor.
 * Keep Although the sites referenced by User:Patentgeek are not of the standard we usually require, I think that in this case the term is so specialized that there may not be any such references. As such, I believe it's best to defer to those who know. howcheng   [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 23:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.