Commissioner for Patents Takes 'Fork in the Road' and Resigns from PTO

Vaishali Udupa

IPWatchdog has learned that Commissioner for Patents Vaishali Udupa has notified the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that she is resigning effective immediately. Udupa has submitted her resignation in order to take advantage of the deferred resignation program —known as Fork in the Road— offered by President Donald J. Trump to federal workers in an email on January 28, 2025.

The deferred resignation program, widely understood as an attempt to shrink the size of the federal government workforce, was first announced in an email to federal employees on January 28, 2025. The program originally required federal employees to elect by 11:59pm today, February 6, 2025, whether they wanted to accept what is in effect an eight-month severance package that would allow them to receive full pay and full benefits without requiring the performance of any work. However, earlier in the day today the United States Federal District Court of Massachusetts entered an order that extended the deadline until at least Monday, February 10, 2025. A hearing on the legality of the government’s offer is scheduled for Monday, February 10. The offer for eight-months severance is being challenged by several government unions as arbitrary and unlawful.

Udupa became Commissioner for Patents in January 2023, spending just over 2 years in the position. Prior to joining the USPTO she was head of litigation for Hewlett Packard Enterprise, where she was responsible for heading HPE’s intellectual property litigation and formulating case strategies. Udupa replaced Acting Commissioner for Patents Andrew Faile, who served as Acting Commissioner after the retirement of Drew Hirshfeld, who was Commissioner for Patents from 2015 until his retirement from the Office in June 2022.

Well-known within the patent community as an advocate for diversity , Udupa joined the USPTO as a relative outsider. While regarded as an excellent trial attorney, she did not have any meaningful prosecution experience, which reportedly caused tensions at times within the Office. The Commissioner for Patents is effectively the head of the patent operation at the Office and responsible for examiners and examination policy, and has historically been a career senior executive employee who has typically risen through the ranks at the Office, often starting out as an examiner.

Valencia Martin Wallace

Deputy Commissioner Valencia Martin Wallace will immediately assume the role of Acting Commissioner for Patents. Wallace, who is well liked and highly respected within the Office, has spent nearly three full decades working for the USPTO. She has served in multiple roles including as Deputy Commissioner for Patent Quality and Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations. Wallace holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Howard University and she earned her JD from The George Washington University School of Law. She also holds a certificate in Advanced Public Administration from Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Public Administration.

UPDATED Friday, February 7 @ 1:41pm ET. An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Udupa was Commissioner for 18-months, and inaccurately identified the retirement date of Drew Hirshfeld.

Gene Quinn Gene Quinn is a patent attorney and a leading commentator on patent law and innovation policy. Mr. Quinn has twice been named one of the top 50 most influential people [...see more]

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com.

Join the Discussion

28 comments so far.

Ostriches
February 11, 2025 03:13 pm
The entire patent system – the USPTO and patent jurisprudence – is beyond repair.

Burn it down and start anew.

You cannot rely on those that broke the system, or who were wholly raised under the current system, to fix the problems – they don’t even see the problems.

In my view, the system was running pretty good up until 2000, and then things started getting bad when they started second action finals, revised the count system, and sorry to say, but started hiring foreign born examiners that could not speak English very well.

Before then, we worked WITH examiners to achieve the common goal of obtaining allowance, where possible, and it was not uncommon to receive 3 or 4 office actions before an application was ripe for a final rejection.

Things, then got progressively worse with KSR, AIA, and Alice. Sure, there are a few examiners that work with applicants nowadays, but they are few.

Now, its all about turning the crank.
Nicole Mule
February 9, 2025 06:57 pm
The USPTO operates by fees alone vs. taxpayer money right? Known for integrity and teamwork it has also been named one of the best places to work in the federal government. Why then would Trump and Musk target this agency that does such sensitive and important work and well known for their work ethic?Access to their information, data and files would also be a national security risk not to mention a morale buster of highly
specialized attorneys and other staff.
Bill
February 9, 2025 02:26 pm
Don’t the trumpys want big government out of business….if they scrap the USPTO they will get more jingly bits in their pocket right? Why do we need the USPTO anyways….
Night Writer
February 8, 2025 02:39 pm
>>Not really wanting to get into it with this guy but here it is anyway

Feeling regarding engaging with you are mutual. There is a link to the story from Bloomberg regarding S&P 100 corporations. You seem to have just fabricated everything you wrote.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity/
Michal Bogacki
February 8, 2025 07:11 am
So, perhaps we can expect fewer lectures from the Office on the dangers of “pro-innovation bias.” There are already political appointees in the Director and Deputy Director positions. There was no need to artificially create a third political appointee position for the role of Commissioner. This resignation will likely be a positive change for all involved.
Pro Say
February 7, 2025 03:47 pm
Note to Examiner (and all Examiners):

I, too, really feel for all of you.

Trump likes throwing bombs any and everywhere.

Instead of using a scalpel, he uses a sledge hammer.

Keeping fingers crossed that — whether thanks to your labor agreement or otherwise — he leaves our nation’s innovation-critical Examiners the h.e.l.l. alone.

Including because the Patent Office costs the federal gov NOTHING.

Not one thin dime.
Me myself and I
February 7, 2025 02:45 pm
She did take the fork “deal.”
David Gooder is also leaving, but at the end of February, which is the end of his 5 year term.
Eileen McDermott
February 7, 2025 01:44 pm
@X – It wasn’t deleted, it just hadn’t been posted yet.
X
February 7, 2025 01:29 pm
My previous post was deleted, presumably for being overly snarky. Fair enough.

The question still stands. Do you have any evidence that Udupa took the “fork” deal, or did she merely resign?
X
February 7, 2025 01:01 pm
How do you know she took the fork deal? Or are you just making things up as usual, Gene?
Examiner
February 7, 2025 11:57 am
This is all so demoralizing as an examiner. Not saying I don’t believe this story, but we haven’t even received any communication or have even had any indication of this resignation internally so far today. Frankly, we haven’t heard much of anything from upper management regarding RTO or the deferred resignation except the bare minimum of what the agency has been told to send to us by OPM. It’s been complete radio silence resulting in a lot of uncertainty and anxiety for us.
Pro Say
February 7, 2025 11:57 am
O.K.; it’s now Friday the 7th.

Anyone know how many PTAB “judges” have taken Trump’s offer and resigned (the cut-off was the 6th)?
Night Writer
February 7, 2025 10:37 am
This also needs to be contextualized with Vidal trying to push through the most onerous continuation rules that would have reduced patent values by another 50%.

Anyone who works in this area knows what Vidal was trying to do–effectively end patents or make them almost worthless. And she did it as she was leaving. I would bet that she will receive within the next several years millions from the anti-patent large corporations for her efforts.
Jeffrey Semprebon
February 7, 2025 10:11 am
“People who voted for Trump are Americans who support the Constitution” – Yes, you can tell from their silence or open rejoicing as the Executive Branch tries to eradicate agencies authorized by the Legislative Branch, a power that appears nowhere in Article II.
Not really wanting to get into it with this guy but here it is anyway
February 7, 2025 10:01 am
The post below from elsewhere provides a good explanation of the absurd 94% comment in the message below:

It took me a while to understand what the actual percentage refers to, so here’s simpler numbers to explain why it seems so high.

Let’s say a company has 900 white employees and 100 POC employeers. Over the course of a year, they lose 10%, so 90 white employees and 10 POC, but they hire 100 white employees and 100 POC.

The company has grown from 900/100 to 910/190. So over the year, they’ve increased their workforce by a net 100 workers, and compared to last year’s numbers, they have an additional 10 white employees and 90 POC, so according to this method of analysis, POC make up 90% of the net increase.

But, of course, we know in absolute terms they hired 100 each of white and POC employees. So their gross hiring for the year is 50%, the net figure is influenced significantly by both the existing racial makeup of the company and the demographics of those retiring or moving on.

Ironically for this measure, the less diverse the company, the more likely that staff who move on from the company are white and the more significant the percentage of incoming POC will look, giving you a higher percentage by this measure.

Personally, this seems like a pretty bad method of analysis of POC involvement in the workforce, and it’s shockingly bad for analysing the relative opportunity for POC vs white people.

And it’s completely, completely inexcusable to not intuitively understand that it absolutely cannot mean that 94% of all new hires in an absolute sense were POC. If you think that only 6% of people hired by S&P100 companies were white in 2021 you have to be so sucked up the culture wars that you can’t have basic common sense. Half the country are white, and white people are more likely to have college degrees than POC. So you have a very outsized white hiring pool – they have to be going somewhere. To think only 6% of new hires by mainstream companies were white is to be competely economically and demographically naive.
BobM
February 7, 2025 09:50 am
” She wasn’t qualified for it in the first place having never been a patent prosecutor and having no knowledge of how the office functions.” Can’t you say this about every person the current president has put into power? A Fox host being in charge of the entire military? Instead of the general they had before?

“94% of the Fortune 100 people hired during Biden were non-white because of DEI/CRT and people like Fink and Blackrock.” Ah, what?
Night Writer
February 7, 2025 09:00 am
John, “DEI hire” is disappointing … career civil servants in the government are being replaced with Trump loyalists … .”

John, you are projecting. People are not “Trump loyalists.” That is your party of the Woke Democrats. People who voted for Trump are Americans who support the Constitution, don’t want wars, don’t want open borders, and want to be hired based on merit.

94% of the Fortune 100 people hired during Biden were non-white because of DEI/CRT and people like Fink and Blackrock. Pretty much every white professional knows people that have been discriminated based on their race or skin color being white.

Reality. Try to live with it and don’t project your sick ideology on us.
JOHN OGILVIE
February 7, 2025 08:56 am
Why do efforts to reduce federal spending target the USPTO, which is funded by user fees, not by taxpayers?
PeteMoss
February 7, 2025 08:40 am
Eight months of full pay for a voluntary resignation is considered “arbitrary and unlawful?”
John
February 7, 2025 07:49 am
The not subtle implication she did a bad job as a “DEI hire” is disappointing but not surprising. Its interesting how you haven’t mentioned how career civil servants in the government are being replaced with Trump loyalists, and the effect that will have on the PTO, or how these past weeks have been the most unproductive for the PTO in over a decade as result of this “Fork” (you) offer. I’m sure that the 19 year old engineers and other merit hires will do a much better job than the current people who have worked these jobs their whole lives. I’m sure that the new job uncertainty and hiring freeze will be great for the efficiency of the PTO.

Also, the President of the United States is effectively the head of the operation at the Executive Branch and is responsible for enforcing laws, initiating legislation, and leading the country, and has historically been a career senior politician who have typically have had at least one job in the government before being hired.
Night Writer
February 7, 2025 07:08 am
We need to get Trump to eliminate the CAFC and wipe out their cases going back to 2003. The CAFC is a court packed with judicial activists who take every chance they have to weaken patents and create chaos.

The patent system can be fixed but we need some bold initiatives.

Udupa was a disgusting appointment. She knew nothing of the prosecution process. Another appointment to satisfy quotas. Let’s go for merit and let’s get someone in there who can clean the system up. Now, I am seeing more and strangeness in prosecution. Where there are now “death squads” that go after examiners. Examiners are terrified of having an allowance pulled back by one of the “death squads” and the “death squads” target 101 and 112. For the applicant, we don’t even know what the “death squad” told the examiner. We get it second hand from the examiner that the application was pulled out of allowance for some reason to do with 101 or 102. This should be done in writing and we should all know what these new “death squads” are doing.

Udupa undoubtably set up the new “death squads” and it is a typical sign of an incompetent to set up something outside the CFR (everything should be in writing) and to try and terrorize people rather revise the system to encourage good behavior.

Reality. We need as much reform in the USPTO and the CAFC as we need in the federal government in general.
Duck Who
February 7, 2025 05:35 am
There is a GOD !
Brian
February 7, 2025 03:41 am
May be she still has a 2nd Job on the side.

Better resign than get fired if Trump finds out that she was doing two jobs and now has to come to the office for her work from home ..USPTO Job
Jeff L.
February 6, 2025 08:38 pm
We could use some talented young programmers to get the USPTO software back to the functional state we once enjoyed.

Anyone know how much has been spent so far on the new Patent Center? If expressed in units of million dollars per bug, the number won’t seem too bad.
Pro Say
February 6, 2025 08:25 pm
Don’t let the door hit you on your way out . . . and please take all the PTAB Death Squad “judges” with you.
The Truth
February 6, 2025 08:06 pm
Not sorry to see her go, she was terrible at the job. She wasn’t qualified for it in the first place having never been a patent prosecutor and having no knowledge of how the office functions. She went on stage two years ago at the AIPLA meeting and in an unprompted and candid admission said to everyone that she had applied for a political appointee position but that Vidal had told her to apply for the Commissioner instead. Hopefully the next Director and Commissioner will be people that focus on improving the patent office instead of what Vidal and Udupa did.
Someone That Doesn’t Want to Give Their Name
February 6, 2025 07:59 pm
Not sad to see her go. She wasn’t qualified for the position in the first place having never been a patent prosecutor and having no knowledge of how the office actually functions. The Commissioner has normally been the highest ranking person with institutional knowledge having been a former examiner/TC director/etc. and they’re supposed to be the chief advisor to the politically appointed under secretary/director of the patent office. Two years ago she went on stage at the AIPLA meeting and said she had applied to be a political appointee but Kathi Vidal told her to apply to be the Commissioner instead. The frank and unprompted admission was jarring to say the least. Hopefully the next Director and Commissioner intend to actually focus on the patent office and making improvements to help examiners in their jobs instead of what Vidal and Udupa did.
Blythe Witherspoon III
February 6, 2025 07:48 pm
She did a good job. The whole “doge” thing is supposed to create efficiency, right? By having 20-25 years olds mess with servers and sensitive data until workers quit. The only possible outcome is more patent application backlog.