The USPTO is apparently still planning to shut down EPAS and ETAS at 12:01 AM on Monday, February 5, 2024, and is still planning to release the successor system, called “Assignment Center” (“AC”), at that time.
The USPTO promised in December of 2021 that the migration from paper to PDF trademark registration certificates would shave off “1-2 weeks” of the waiting time to receive the certificate. Did the USPTO keep its promise? Continue reading “The Trademark Office promised to shave “1-2 weeks” off the waiting time for a registration certificate”
Hello colleagues. It is time to get your numbers in for the 2023 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 toward the end of the day on Friday, February 9, 2024. Please don’t dawdle with this. Please just hand in your numbers and be done with it.
The 2023 toteboards will get published in February of 2024. 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 no later than Friday, February 9, 2024!
You can see the past toteboards, including the 2022 toteboards, here.
- To hand in your numbers for the Ninth Annual utility patent toteboard, click here.
- To hand in your numbers for the Ninth Annual trademark toteboard, click here.
- To hand in your numbers for the Twelfth Annual design patent toteboard, click here.
- To hand in your numbers for the Fifth Annual plant patent toteboard, click here.
(Update: it looks like maybe the USPTO might answer my letter about this. See blog article.)
Anybody who files a US utility patent application is forced to choose among three filing paths, each of which has advantages and disadvantages. The paths include:
- Legacy PDF. This is the path that incurs the $400 non-DOCX penalty. If you pick the legacy PDF filing path for your patent application, you can draw upon twenty years of experience with Certificate of Correction practice. If a correction of the issued US patent is needed because of a USPTO error, the path for correction is well understood and predictable.
- DOCX without applicant-generated PDF. A first filing path that permits the applicant to avoid the need to pay the non-DOCX surcharge is the filing of the patent application in DOCX format, without also filing an applicant-generated PDF. If you pick DOCX without applicant-generated PDF, it appears that there is no correction path available to the patent owner at all, except in the relatively rare case where the patent issues within one year of the application filing date.
- DOCX with applicant-generated PDF. A second filing path that permits the applicant to avoid the need to pay the non-DOCX surcharge is the filing of the patent application in DOCX format, accompanied by an applicant-generated PDF. If you pick DOCX with applicant-generated PDF, it is not very clear what correction path is available to the patent owner. One of the Federal Register notices talks about an “ongoing safeguard”, but it is not clear when a correction request may be filed (maybe only within one year of the application filing date).
Here is a canonical list of domino clicks for adoption of NACS (Tesla-style) electric vehicle charging plugs and charging ports.
As you will see, nearly all makers of EVs for the US market have by now joined the NACS club, the sole holdout being Stellantis (maker of Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Maserati, and Ram).
Dear reader, are you located in the US and do you own or lease an EV that is not a Tesla vehicle? If so, then I’d like to know where on your vehicle the charging port is located. Please visit this blog article and complete the survey to let me know where the charging port is located on your vehicle.
Here is a blog article, in a writing style that might look somewhat familiar, about a travel case that carries a Starlink router and antenna.
Two days ago I published (blog article) the text of a letter that our firm sent to some of our instructing foreign patent firms. One of the firms wrote back to us about this, asking whether the “auxiliary PDF” option in the DOCX filing path might alleviate the DOCX risks sufficiently to permit following the DOCX filing path, and thus to permit avoidance of the $400 non-DOCX penalty. Here is how we responded to the instructing foreign patent firm: Continue reading “What we wrote to one of our instructing foreign patent firms today about DOCX”
Yesterday (blog article) I posted the text of a letter about the $400 non-DOCX penalty that our firm has sent to a number of the non-US patent firms that send work to us. Today a partner at another patent firm has provided a copy of a letter that that patent firm is sending to a number of its clients. Here is that letter: Continue reading “What another patent firm is telling its clients about the $400 non-DOCX penalty”
With no advance warning whatsoever, on the scheduled date for USPTO’s shutdown of EPAS and ETAS, and the scheduled launch of the successor system for recordation of assignments, USPTO has quietly announced a third postponement of the migration. Continue reading “Another postponement of son-of-EPAS/ETAS”
(See this followup blog post about what we wrote to one of our instructing foreign patent firms after they responded to the letter quoted below.)
Some non-US patent firms entrust to our firm the filing of US patent applications. We realized that they would need to hear about the $400 non-DOCX penalty that the USPTO started charging on January 17, 2024. Here is what we wrote about the $400 non-DOCX penalty to some of these non-US patent firms: Continue reading “What we are telling non-US patent firms about the DOCX penalty”