July 19, 2019

Archives for February 13, 2012

Colorado’s Proposal for a USPTO Satellite Patent Office and Online Petition

On November 29, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a “Request for Comments on Additional USPTO Satellite Patent Offices for the Nationwide Workforce Program.” The full text of the USPTO’s Request can be found here.

In Response to the USPTO Request, the Colorado Bar Association Intellectual Property Section worked closely with the offices of Denver Mayor Hancock, Governor Hickenlooper, Senator Bennet, the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation and Accelerated Colorado (“the Coalition for a Colorado Satellite Patent Office”) to prepare and submitted Colorado’s proposal to the USPTO on January 27, 2012. Additional letters of support and the signed Joint Resolution 12-008, Concerning the State of Colorado’s support for locating a patent office in the Denver metro area, adopted by the Colorado Assembly during the 2012 legislative session were submitted to the USPTO on January 30, 2012. The IP Section would like thank everybody who submitted comments on and letters in support of a Colorado Satellite Patent Office.

Senator Bennet’s Office is currently running an online petition in support of a Colorado Satellite Patent Office. To date, Senator Bennet’s office has already received 2300 electronic signatures on the petition. The IP Section encourages you to view the petition and electronically sign on if you support it.

Please let the IP Section Leadership know if you have any questions or comments. Otherwise, the Leadership will continue to keep you updated on this Initiative.

Tenth Circuit: Petitioner Admitted Elements of Attempt to Commit Theft; Sentence Enhancement Appropriate

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in United States v. Venzor-Granillo on Friday, February 10, 2012.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentence. Petitioner pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States following a prior removal. Petitioner “objected to the application of the eight-level sentence enhancement, claiming his prior conviction did not constitute an aggravated felony. The Colorado statute under which [he] was convicted states: ‘A person commits the crime of first degree criminal trespass if such person knowingly and unlawfully enters or remains in a dwelling of another or if such person enters any motor vehicle with intent to commit a crime therein.’ Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-502. [Petitioner] admitted he was convicted under the latter part of the statute, which criminalizes entering a motor vehicle with intent to commit a crime therein (the ‘trespass to a motor vehicle’ part of the statute). He asserted, however, that a conviction under this part of the statute does not necessarily constitute an aggravated felony. Moreover, he argued, the district court was prohibited from applying the modified categorical approach and reviewing the charging document and plea agreement underlying his prior conviction to determine whether he was actually convicted of an aggravated felony.”

The Court agreed with the district court and rejected Petitioner’s argument. “The district court properly applied the modified categorical approach because the Colorado statute under which [Petitioner] was convicted is ambiguous: it reaches a broad range of conduct, some of which merits the enhancement and some of which does not. The charging document and plea agreement underlying [Petitioner]’s prior conviction reveal he necessarily admitted all the elements of the generic offense of attempt to commit theft. Therefore, the district court did not err in imposing the sentence enhancement.”

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 2/10/12

On Friday, February 10, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and seven unpublished opinions.

Unpublished

Calvert v. Dinwiddie

DeGraw v. Exide Technologies

Brimer v. Life Ins. Co. of North America

United States v. Baum

Haworth v. United States

United States v. Sanchez-Sosa

United States v. Hinson

No case summaries are available for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.