Audit of USPTO’s Management of Trademark Pendency

The Inspector General at the Department of Commerce has initiated an audit of the USPTO’s management of trademark pendency.  You can see the audit letter, which is dated October 10, 2023, here.

Here is what the Inspector General says:

We are initiating an audit of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) management of trademark pendency. Our objective is to determine whether USPTO exercised effective oversight and management of trademark pendency.

We plan to begin this work immediately. We will contact your audit liaisons to schedule an entrance conference, at which time we will discuss in further detail the specific nature of our audit—including our objective and scope, time frames, and any potential requests for data.

The letter is addressed to the Director of the USPTO, Kathi Vidal, with copies to several other people at the USPTO including Commissioner for Trademarks, David Gooder.

USPTO people to meet with Patentcenter listserv people

I find it very encouraging to be able to report that a face-to-face meeting has been arranged between USPTO people and people from the Patentcenter listserv.

This will happen on Wednesday, October 18, 2023, at room 10D79 of the Madison Building (600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314).  The meeting is scheduled for 3:30 PM to 5PM.

Attending on the USPTO side will be:

    • Vaishali Udupa (Commissioner for Patents)
    • Richard Seidel (Deputy Commissioner for Patents)
    • Greg Vidovich (Assistant Commissioner for Patents)
    • Terrel Morris (Director, Office of Information Technology for Patents)
    • Kimberly Williams (OITP)
    • Patricia Mallari (Special Advisor for Patents)
    • Steven Griffin (Senior Advisor at USPTO)

Attending on behalf of the Patentcenter listserv will be:

    • Carl Oppedahl
    • Richard Schafer
    • Suzannah Sundby

What prompted this meeting are the concerns that were raised in the letter dated September 29, 2023 from One Hundred Seventy-Eight Members of the Patent Center Listserv to USPTO Director Kathi Vidal.

USPTO quietly fixes CP99

Everybody knows that you cannot enter the national phase twice from a single PCT application.  Everybody, that is, except:

    • the people at the USPTO who wrote the software for Patent Center (see Patent Center bug CP99), and
    • the USPTO presenter who, on September 19, 2023, said (listen to the recording) that it was intentional that Patent Center was designed to permit duplicate entries into the US national phase from a single PCT application.

EFS-Web had been correctly programmed all along to guard against this mistake.  If, in EFS-Web, a filer were to attempt to enter the US national phase in a PCT case in which the US national phase had already been entered, a warning would appear.  But the Patent Center developers had failed to bring this feature forward from EFS-Web into Patent Center.  This was Patent Center bug CP99, reported to the USPTO on February 20, 2023.  This was one of many reasons why it had been false for the USPTO to claim that “100%” of the features and functions of Private PAIR and EFS-Web had been brought forward into Patent Center.   (It continues to be false for the USPTO to claim, as it continues to claim, that “100%” of the features and functions of Private PAIR and EFS-Web have been brought forward into Patent Center.)

The Patent Center developers at the USPTO have now quietly corrected this bug in Patent Center.  Now, for the first time starting at about October 11, 2023, if you try to enter the US national phase twice from a single PCT application in Patent Center, a warning pops up.  This problem was reported to the USPTO in February, and it took more than seven months, but the Patent Center developers have now fixed this problem.

It would have been courteous of the USPTO to let us know that it cleared trouble ticket CP99, but USPTO did not do so.  We had to find out by stumbling upon it.

The other corrective step that needed to happen was for the USPTO to send out a correction, perhaps by email, to the people who attended the September 19, 2023 Patent Center training event.  Those people were expressly told by the USPTO presenter that it is possible, and indeed, advisable, to enter the US national phase multiple times from a single PCT application, for example if there had been a finding of a lack of unity of invention in the international phase.  (Listen to the recording here.)  But the USPTO has not sent out any such correction.

137 Intellectual Property Professionals write to OIRA re Patent Center

One hundred thirty-seven intellectual property professionals have written to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget, asking for regulatory action regarding the USPTO’s handling of Patent Center and Private PAIR and EFS-Web.  The letter is dated today, October 9, 2023.  You can see it on SSRN (https://ssrn.com/abstract=4597405) and it is archived here.  The letter asks that OIRA do three things:

    • Remind the USPTO that it may not impose a burden of this magnitude without an ICR clearance.  Decommission of incumbent, working software should be postponed until the USPTO’s new replacement software demonstrates a level of reliability that provides practical utility. Decommission should be postponed until the PTO has a clearance obtained after full public comment. The PTO has done none of these things.
    • Remind the PTO that Information Quality principles govern the PTO’s decisionmaking.  Readiness and quality reviews of the new software on which the PTO relies are “influential,” and should meet requirements for objectivity, utility, integrity, and reproducibility, and public consultation. Software utility, quality, and readiness must be assessed from the point of view of the PTO’s users, not the PTO’s staff. The PTO has not done so.
    • Exercise its authority under 44 U.S.C. § 3504(a) and (h) to “oversee the implementation of policies, principles, standards, and guidelines for information technology functions and activities of the Federal Government, including periodic evaluations of major information systems” to ensure that the PTO’s major information systems are designed to achieve agency missions. As we note below, the PTO’s software engineering and quality processes are suspect.

October 7 is not the day

No, folks, October 7 is not the day.  Sorry about that.  The posting on October 7 about a new shortened response period for post-reg trademark Office Actions was an automatic, scheduled posting that I had scheduled many months ago.  But see this Federal Register notice dated September 12, 2023 in which the USPTO says that October 7, 2023 is not the day.  Instead, this change will happen at some unspecified time in “the spring or early summer of 2024”.

Dealing with a hack

Hello loyal readers.  A couple of days ago, this blog got hacked.  Instead of the usual “Ant-Like Persistence” page, it was a mostly blank page asking the visitor to type in a password.

Several nice people dropped emails to me to let me know they had noticed the problem.

I will describe what had gone wrong and what I did to fix the hack.  Continue reading “Dealing with a hack”

If only USPTO people could …

If only USPTO leadership people who are responsible for Patent Center could extend to USPTO’s customers the courtesy of …

    • returning telephone calls, or
    • replying to paper letters, or
    • answering emails.

If only the Commissioner for Patents could have answered a paper letter that Seventy-Four Members of the Patent Center Listserv sent to him about Patent Center on December 16, 2021.  He never replied to that letter.

If only the Director of the USPTO, Kathi Vidal, could have answered an email message that the Patent Center Listserv sent to her about Patent Center on June 9, 2023.  She never answered that email.

If only the Assistant Commissioner for Patents could answer an email message that the Patent Center Listserv sent to him about Patent Center on July 11, 2023.  He has not answered that email.

If only the Commissioner for Patents, Vaishali Udupa, could answer an email message that the Patent Center Listserv sent to her about Patent Center on July 25, 2023.  She has not answered that email.

If only the Assistant Commissioner for Patents could return a telephone message that the Patent Center Listserv left for him about Patent Center on September 18, 2023, asking him about the unanswered email of July 11, 2023 mentioned above.  He has not returned our call.

If only the Director of the USPTO, Kathi Vidal, could answer a paper letter that One Hundred Seventy-Eight Members of the Patent Center Listserv sent to her about Patent Center on September 29, 2023.  She has not replied to that letter.

If only the Commissioner for Patents, Vaishali Udupa, could answer an email message that the Patent Center Listserv sent to her about Patent Center on September 30, 2023.  She has not answered that email.

If only the Director of the USPTO, Kathi Vidal, could answer an Offer of Compromise that the Patent Center Listserv sent to her as a paper letter on September 30, 2023.  She has not replied to that Offer of Compromise.

When high-up USPTO people who are responsible for Patent Center fail to return telephone calls, and fail to reply to paper letters, and fail to answer emails, what should customers do?  

Today is not the day — not only 3 months to respond to a post-reg trademark Office Action

(Update:  No, folks, today is not the day.  Sorry about that.  The posting quoted below was an automatic, scheduled posting that I had scheduled many months ago.  But see this Federal Register notice dated September 12, 2023 in which the USPTO says that October 7, 2023 is not the day.  Instead, this change will happen at some unspecified time in “the spring or early summer of 2024”.)

Yes, folks, today is the day.  Starting today, you only get three months to respond to a USPTO post-reg trademark Office Action instead of the usual six months.   I told you all about this back on October 12, 2022 (blog article) and on December 3, 2022 (blog article).  This article hopefully answers some of your questions about this change. 

Does this affect the response period for post-reg Office Actions mailed yesterday or before?   No.  This affects only the response period for post-reg Office Actions mailed today (Saturday, October 7, 2023) or after today.

What if I need more than three months?  If you need more than three months, you can purchase the remaining three months (restoring the response period to the statutory six months) by paying $125.

So this works just like extensions of time in USPTO patent cases?  No!  It is quite different, in many ways, as this table details.

Patent Trademark
small entity or micro costs less? yes no
you can get one, two, or three months of extension?  (or four or five months for certain steps) yes you get to pick no, you can only get three months of extension, no more and no less
when you must pay? you may pay in arrears You must pay before the three months has run out
how much money? $55 to $3160 depending on entity size and number of months of extension $125

Madrid cases?  No, this does not apply to cases with a 66a filing basis (US designations from international trademark registrations).  Those cases will continue to get the full statutory six-month response period.

Gotchas?   Yes, there will be gotchas.  If you respond within the three-month period, but if the post-reg person says you have failed to “respond to all issues”, whatever that means, then your case will have gone abandoned and you will have to petition to revive.

Suppose you respond within the three-month period, and you supposedly fail to “respond to all issues”, and there is still some time left before the end of the three-month period, and the post-reg person delivers this bad news to you before the end of the three-month period.  In such a case, the post-reg person will let you know that to avoid abandonment, you can pay the $125 fee to purchase the remaining three months of response time.

As alert reader Michael Brown points out, the EA might choose to give you a 30-day “mulligan” if the EA decides that your response that failed to be “complete” was nonetheless “substantially complete”.  See blog article.