logo
  • Home
  • Toteboards
  • About Carl Oppedahl
  • speedtest
  • Sites that Cite our Site

Monthly Archives: February 2019

Register now for Design Day 2019

28th February, 2019 · oppedahl · 1 Comment

click to enlarge

You will recall that back on January 13, 2019 I told you to save the date, namely Thursday, April 25.

Registration is now open for Design Day 2019.  This will be at the USPTO in Alexandria, Virginia.

This event always sells out weeks in advance.  If you want to attend, you need to register right away.

To learn more, or to register, click here.

Yours truly is among the members of the planning committee for Design Day 2019.  I can promise you that it will be a good use of your time to attend.

 

Posted in Industrial Designs |

Today is a snow day at the USPTO

20th February, 2019 · oppedahl · Leave a comment

Today, Wednesday, February 20, 2019 is a snow day.  This means that any document that you needed to file today at the USPTO will be timely if you file it by tomorrow, Thursday, February 21.

(This might be as good a time as any to subscribe to this blog.)

Posted in Industrial Designs, Patents, Trademarks |

Update: Status of ID5 Offices in DAS

19th February, 2019 · oppedahl · Leave a comment

Let’s remind ourselves how the five biggest Offices for industrial design protection (called “ID5”) are coming along in terms of participation in the DAS system.  It is recalled that the DAS system permits the exchange and retrieval of electronic certified copies of priority documents.  So which Offices are trendy, modern, and up-to-date?  Which of the ID5 Offices have not yet joined DAS for designs?   Continue reading →

Posted in Industrial Designs |

Filing a Demand if no ISR has been established?

18th February, 2019 · oppedahl · Leave a comment

I recently blogged about an imminent PCT rules change.  The rules change, which will take effect July 1, 2019, changes the timing of when an International Preliminary Examining Authority (“IPEA”) will commence its preliminary examination activity after receiving a Demand from an applicant.

  • The present situation is that the IPEA will put the activity “on ice” until the last possible date (P+22 or ISR+3, whichever is later) unless the applicant makes an express request for the activity to be commenced sooner.
  • The situation on and after July 1, 2019 will be that the IPEA will commence the preliminary examination right away unless the applicant makes an express request that the activity be postponed.

Which naturally enough raises the question of what exactly counts as “right away”?  And as I explained in the blog post, “right away” is defined as the date upon which the IPEA is for the first time in possession of all of the following:

  • the Demand;
  • the Preliminary Examination fee and the handling fee (and late fee if applicable);  and
  • the ISR/WO (or declaration of non-establishment).

Every now and then someone will suggest that the PCT has the potential to be a bit dry.  And whenever that happens, others will point out particularly fascinating aspects of the PCT that show how wrong that suggestion could be.  And so it is today, as one alert reader on the PCT listserv (which of course you should join if you have not already done so) reminded listserv members a few minutes ago.  She wondered why one would ever file a Demand if one had received a Declaration of non-establishment of an international search report.  Her comment was informed by the fact that as a general rule, IPEAs usually will not carry out preliminary examination for any subject matter for which an international search has not been carried out.

Indeed why, despite having received a declaration of non-establishment, might one nonetheless feel the need to file a Demand? Continue reading →

Posted in PCT |

Western Union Edge

17th February, 2019 · oppedahl · 7 Comments

Seemingly almost every industry is disrupted these days by the Internet and other technological changes.  Over-the-top distribution of streaming media allows the consumer to bypass legacy cable or satellite gatekeepers.  Voice over IP services allow telephone customers to bypass legacy landline telephone companies, saving lots of money.

Yet every time we get paid by foreign patent or trademark counsel, we get charged by our own bank to receive the bank wire, even if the sender pays all of the bank fees at their end that they are able to pay at their end.  I recently asked for a detail billing from our bank and found that our bank was also charging us an additional fee for many of our incoming bank wires to “repair” some of the wires because of real or imagined flaws in the bank wire instructions received from the foreign banks.

Frustrations like these had often reminded me that I keep hearing about various ways other than bank wires that people can send money to each other.  Venmo.  Zelle.  Paypal.  Wechat.  But most of these systems are no good for international transfers, and most of these systems are unavailable to businesses.

Are there smart ways to save money paying foreign patent and trademark counsel?  Is it possible to bypass banks, avoiding the bank wire transfer fees that normally get charged to both the senders and the recipients of wire transfers? Continue reading →

Posted in Office Tech |

Save the date – e-Trademarks listserv reception in Boston – May 21

17th February, 2019 · oppedahl · Leave a comment

The Ninth Annual e-Trademarks listserv reception will take place on Tuesday, May 21.  This will be during the time of the INTA meeting in Boston.

Details will follow.  (see here)

Save the date!

 

Posted in Trademarks |

Important PCT rule change effective July 1, 2019

17th February, 2019 · oppedahl · 1 Comment

Each year, July 1 is very often the date upon which PCT rules changes will take effect, and 2019 is no exception.  There is a rule change regarding PCT Demands that will come into force on July 1, 2019.

The single most important thing to keep in mind about this rule change will be the importance of making sure to get one’s Article 34 Amendment (or instructions to take into account one’s Article 19 Amendment) filed with the IPEA no later than the date upon which one hands in the Demand itself and the associated fees. Continue reading →

Posted in PCT |

Receiving Offices that need to join DAS

16th February, 2019 · oppedahl · 4 Comments

(Update:  A letter got sent on February 22, 2020 to the Commissioner for Patents at the USPTO, asking the RO/US to become a Depositing Office in the DAS system.  See blog post.  The Commissioner for Patents answered.  See blog post.)

(Updated to reflect that RO/EP, RO/GE, RO/IL and RO/NO joined the trendy, modern and up-to-date club.)

One of the important ways that a patent office can participate in the DAS program is as a Depositing Office.  This means that the Office makes applications which have been filed at that Office available to the DAS system so that other Offices can retrieve the applications.

A particular way that a patent office can participate in DAS is in its role as a Receiving Office.  The idea is that an applicant may have filed a PCT application in that Receiving Office, and may later find the need to claim priority from that PCT application with respect to some later-filed patent application.  When such a situation arises, the normal expectation of the applicant would be that of course the Receiving Office will be a Depositing Office in the DAS system.

Such a Receiving Office would, of course, deserve the accolade of being termed “trendy, modern, and up-to-date.”

Which then raises the natural question “which Receiving Offices are trendy, modern, and up-to-date?”  Here is the list of patent offices whose Receiving Offices are trendy, modern, and up-to-date:

  • Australia
  • Brazil
  • Chile
  • China
  • Denmark
  • Eurasian Patent Organization
  • European Patent Office
  • Finland
  • Georgia
  • India
  • Israel
  • Morocco
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • WIPO

One might then wonder, which Receiving Offices are not trendy, modern, and up-to-date?  And in particular, one might wonder, if we rank the Receiving Offices in order by the number of filings at those Offices, which of the top-ranked Receiving Offices are not yet trendy, modern, and up-to-date? Well, one need wonder no longer.  Here I provide the answer.

Here are the top-ranked Receiving Offices by number of PCT filings.  These five Receiving Offices, taken together, account for something like 85% of all PCT applications filed in the world.  Next to each of these five Receiving Offices I have indicated whether (as of April 2020) it has or has not become a Depositing Office in the DAS system:

  1. RO/US (USPTO) – not trendy, modern, and up-to-date
  2. RO/CN (China) – yes trendy, modern, and up-to-date
  3. RO/JP (Japan) – not trendy, modern, and up-to-date
  4. RO/EP (European Patent Office) – yes trendy, modern, and up-to-date
  5. RO/KR (Korean Intellectual Property Office) – not trendy, modern, and up-to-date

Participation as a Depositing Office is clearly an action item for RO/US, RO/JP, and RO/KR.

Let’s hope that the USPTO, the JPO, and the KIPO will soon join the DAS system as Receiving Offices.

Posted in PCT |

Mondegreen – a neat word

10th February, 2019 · oppedahl · 2 Comments

We are all accustomed to the phenomenon that a person might mishear a song lyric or other publicly recited phrase.  “to the republic for Richard Stands.”  “scuse me while I kiss this guy.”  It turns out there is a name for this.  It is called a Mondegreen.

What got me thinking about this, of course, was my recent blog article that mentioned Bad Moon Rising.  “There’s a bathroom on the right.”

Anyway so now you can save up this really good word “Mondegreen” and put it to use in just the right setting.

Posted in Office Tech |

Shutting down my Facebook page

9th February, 2019 · oppedahl · 1 Comment

Some years passed during which I considered it and considered it.  Finally a couple of months ago I closed my Facebook account.

I don’t miss it a bit. Continue reading →

Posted in Office Tech |
Next Posts

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

  • Copyrights (25)
  • Industrial Designs (243)
    • Hague Agreement (60)
  • Office Tech (175)
  • Patents (738)
    • non-DOCX penalty (17)
    • Patentcenter (62)
    • PCT (262)
    • Substantive law (5)
  • Trade Secrets (1)
  • Trademarks (293)
    • Madrid Protocol (51)
  • Travel (20)
  • Uncategorized (1)

Archives

  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
© 2019 Carl Oppedahl
  • Home
  • Toteboards
  • About Carl Oppedahl
  • speedtest
  • Sites that Cite our Site