Yesterday I posted Best Practice for filing a PCT application in RO/US. Shortly thereafter, a very nice person at WIPO sent half a dozen suggestions for making the posting better. So I have revised the posting. Be sure to use the revised version as it is better.
USPTO’s new Patent Application Alert Service
USPTO and Reed Tech have announced an interesting alert service. You go to this web page and create a user ID. And you set up one or more search terms of interest. Every Thursday, when USPTO releases another set of published patent applications, the system will use your search terms and will let you know if there is some matching published patent application.
Best Practice for filing a PCT application in RO/US
In this article I will describe the Best Practice for filing a Patent Cooperation Treaty patent application in the Receiving Office at the USPTO.
(Note on June 12, 2015 — a nice person at WIPO offered suggestions for improvement of this article, all of which were very helpful, so I have updated this article.)
Continue reading “Best Practice for filing a PCT application in RO/US”
Defective TEAS form — section 71 and 15
The TEAS system offers an online form called “Combined declaration of use & incontestability under Sections 71 & 15“. It turns out the form is defective — it sometimes forces the user to pay a grace period fee even if the would-be filing is not within the grace period. There are two possible workarounds. Continue reading “Defective TEAS form — section 71 and 15”
What is “incontestability”?
What does it mean for a US trademark registration to be “incontestable”? Continue reading “What is “incontestability”?”
Amending a US application that Is the basis of an IR?
A member of the E-Trademarks listserv asked this:
I have never filed via the Madrid Protocol, but I am considering filing one based on a recently filed US application. If the listing of goods in the US application are amended, are the IR and the subsequent designations automatically amended so that the goods are always the same? It would seem weird to have an IR and national designations with a different listing of goods.
Continue reading “Amending a US application that Is the basis of an IR?”
Two mistakes frequently made by users of Microsoft Outlook
This blog post discusses two mistakes frequently made by users of Microsoft Outlook. Continue reading “Two mistakes frequently made by users of Microsoft Outlook”
USPTO still an SSL laggard
In August of 2014 I blogged that USPTO needed to implement SSL (“https://”) on all of its public-facing web sites. I also said that USPTO needed to implement PFS on all of its SSL-enabled web sites. (SSL and PFS are security features that protect visitors from eavesdropping by third parties around the Internet.) In that blog article I explained in detail why this is important. As just one of many examples of why this is important, the way things are now at the USPTO, third parties could eavesdrop and learn what search terms you are using when you search for a patent or a trademark registration.
Ten months have passed. It is now June of 2015 and USPTO has made no progress on this. None. Zip. Every USPTO web site that was vulnerable to this sort of eavesdropping in August of 2014 continues to be vulnerable today in June of 2015.
Now comes a directive from the White House saying the same thing now in June 2015 that I said in August of 2014. The directive tells all federal agencies that “all publicly accessible Federal websites and web services” must “only provide service through a secure connection” meaning https://. All agencies, including the USPTO, are required to get this done by December 31, 2016.
Let’s see how promptly the USPTO complies with this directive from the White House.
What’s the Best Practice for 92bis changes?
One of many nice things about the PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) system is that you can do one-stop shopping for changes in the bibliographic data. (In a somewhat similar way, the Madrid Protocol and Hague Agreement systems provide one-stop shopping for assignments and owner address changes.) By filing a so-called Rule 92bis request, you can update the inventor list, the name of the applicant, and/or addresses and citizenships thereof.
When I say “one-stop shopping” I mean that you do the change once and it covers multiple countries or Offices around the world.
But there are better and worse ways to carry out your 92bis request, and that’s the point of this blog posting.
Continue reading “What’s the Best Practice for 92bis changes?”
A reminder of an AIA trap for the unwary – “checking the box”
The America Invents Act took effect on September 16, 2012 and on March 16, 2013. Well over two years ago. So we don’t have to keep worrying about it nowadays, right?
Wrong, very wrong. We have to worry about it now even more than ever.
Here’s one example for the practitioner who is asked by foreign counsel to enter the US national phase from a PCT application. Continue reading “A reminder of an AIA trap for the unwary – “checking the box””