How to do a toteboard search?

Hello readers and colleagues.  Within a few weeks, based on numbers reported by you, we will be posting the 2022 toteboards.  This includes the following:

    • The Eighth Annual utility patent toteboard.
    • The Eleventh Annual design patent toteboard.
    • The Fourth Annual  plant patent toteboard.

For ten years now, it has been quite easy to do a search in the US Patent Full-Text Database to get numbers that you could send in for the toteboards.  But now in 2023, such searches are nearly impossible.  This blog article tries to help a little with doing such searches in 2023.  Continue reading “How to do a toteboard search?”

Get your numbers in for the 2022 toteboards

(Update:  I have collected some information from readers in this blog article about how to try to do toteboard searches in the new and poorly designed Patent Public Search system.)

Hello colleagues.   It is time to get your numbers in for the 2022 toteboards.  The toteboards have a goal of recognizing the intellectual property firms that filed the most US utility patent applications, filed the most US design patent applications, filed the most US plant patent applications, and filed the most US trademark applications, and saw them through to issuance and registration.

The submission forms will close on Tuesday, January 24, 2023.    Please don’t dawdle with this.  Please just hand in your numbers and be done with it.

The 2022 toteboards will get published in February of 2023.  Every year, we publish the toteboards, and after that, some firm comes in begging and pleading to hand in its numbers late.  Please don’t do that.  Please hand in your numbers before Tuesday, January 24, 2023!

You can see the past toteboards, including the 2021 toteboards, here.

    • To hand in your numbers for the Eighth Annual utility patent toteboard, click here.
    • To hand in your numbers for the Eighth Annual trademark toteboard, click here.
    • To hand in your numbers for the Eleventh Annual design patent toteboard, click here.
    • To hand in your numbers for the Fourth Annual  plant patent toteboard, click here.

USPTO’s $400 non-DOCX penalty and car rental collision damage waivers

Patent applicants and practitioners continue to resent the USPTO’s $400 penalty that it plans to impose upon any patent applicant that has the temerity to try to establish a PDF file as the “controlling” document for the patent application being filed.  The penalty was going to start a few days ago, on January 1, 2023.  The USPTO blinked and has postponed the penalty to a starting date of April 3, 2023.  As of right now, that is when this penalty will begin.

The other day I realized that there is a pretty strong analogy to make here between this $400 penalty and another bane of daily life — car rental companies gouging renters with the “collision damage waiver”.  Continue reading “USPTO’s $400 non-DOCX penalty and car rental collision damage waivers”

Director Vidal could have said “thank you”

On October 11, 2022, through the work of Krista Jacobsen, the following two letters were sent to USPTO Director Kathi Vidal:

    • A first letter, signed by twenty-seven patent practitioners, was about erroneous information in official Filing Receipts regarding publication dates.  You can see the signed letter here.
    • A second letter, signed by twenty-five patent practitioners, was about missing information in official Filing Receipts regarding whether or not a Foreign Filing License has been granted.  You can see the signed letter here.

Today, January 6, 2023, the USPTO published a document bearing Director Vidal’s signature and dated January 3, 2023.  It seems the USPTO plans to publish the document in the January 24, 2023 Official Gazette.  You can see the document here and it is archived here.  Director Vidal’s Notice admits that in March of 2022, the USPTO broke something about how it generates filing receipts, so that there were many FFL-related defects in many filing receipts thereafter, and filing receipts in design patent applications and provisional applications got mailed that wrongly showed a projected publication date.  (The USPTO does not publish design patent applications or provisional patent applications.)  The notice admits that the USPTO did not fix what was broken until October 18, 2022.  After that, the USPTO mailed out corrected filing receipts to replace the filing receipts that failed to say that an FFL had already been granted.

For several reasons, including knowledge of internal communications at the USPTO after Krista sent the two letters, I believe that it was specifically Krista’s two letters that made the USPTO aware of the problems, and I believe that her two letters were the direct cause of the USPTO fixing its broken system.

What I find extremely disappointing is that Director Vidal’s notice fails to say “thank you”.  It fails to acknowledge the communications that brought this problem to her attention.

In Director Vidal’s notice, the USPTO pretends that it was the USPTO that “discovered” these problems.

It would not have cost a penny for Director Vidal to add a sentence to her notice, saying something like “The USPTO thanks a group of patent practioners whose letters to the USPTO prompted the corrective action by the USPTO.”

I think the right thing now would be for Director Vidal to prepare and mail a letter of thanks to Krista, and through her, to the more than two dozen signers of the two letters.

Setting up a VLAN for your IOT devices

click to enlarge

Each time I install another internet-of-things (“IOT”) device in my home, it is always the same:  the device requires that I tell it the wifi password for the Internet connection in my home.  The app that needs to be installed on my smart phone to get the IOT device working also asks lots of intrusive things, and demands to be given access to my “location”.  This leads to a situation where the IOT device could be a security risk for trusted devices on my local area network.  What can be done to reduce or eliminate the security risks presented by the dozens of IOT devices in my home?  Part of the answer is to set up a VLAN (virtual local area network).  Then the IOT devices are denied any opportunity to have any access to my trusted devices.  I will describe how this is done.

Continue reading “Setting up a VLAN for your IOT devices”

Three law review articles about internet domain name disputes

Here are three law review articles that I published about internet domain name disputes: