This blog post describes some most recent developments in the business of the Trademark Office granting $100 petitions for trademark applicants who do not want to tell Trademark Office employees exactly where they sleep at night. This blog post talks about the privacy situation where the named applicant is a legal person (such as an LLC) rather than a natural person (a human being). Continue reading
Can the heirs to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle shut down a soon-to-be-released Netflix movie Enola Holmes by asserting copyright? The answer, it seems, turns on whether “having emotions” is a thing that copyright can protect. No, I am not making this up. Continue reading
I request that the Commissioner for Patents publish an Official Gazette notice along the lines of the proposed notice appearing below. Continue reading
It is ingrained in our behavior that if we are going to take a step toward calling someone on the telephone, we need to ask them “what is your telephone number?” It is is ingrained in our behavior that if we are going to make it possible for someone to call us on the telephone, we need to be able to tell someone “our telephone number”. This world of “having a telephone number” and “calling a telephone number” is the most prominent aspect of the Public Switched Telephone Network (Wikipedia article). One way to think of the PSTN is that it is a collective effort by governments and post offices and landline telephone companies to collect money from people who “dial telephone numbers” and who receive telephone calls from other people who “dial telephone numbers”.
The rise of the Internet has prompted many efforts to find ways that people can talk to each other without paying money to the PSTN. One of those ways is the SIP URI (Wikipedia article). Continue reading
Recently Oppedahl Patent Law Firm LLC migrated from a physical local PBX to a cloud PBX. What prompted us to do this? What are the pros and cons of such a migration? How might one go about selecting a cloud PBX service provider? Continue reading
Yes, today is the day that Colombia joins DAS as both an Accessing Office and a Depositing Office. You can read about this here.
Who is the most trendy, modern and up-to-date Colombian intellectual property firm? Be the first to provide to me an application number, filing date, and DAS access code for a design application, a patent application, a utility model application, and an RO/CO application, and I will recognize your status as the most trendy, modern and up-to-date in Colombia. (I will blur part of the application number in the Certificates of Availability that I obtain and post.)
I think the best identifier to use with a messaging app is a VOIP SMS telephone number.
The identifier that Signal uses is a cellular telephone number. I am very glad to tell you, however, that you don’t really have to use a traditional cellular telephone number. For example for my Signal service I don’t actually use a cellular number, I use instead a VOIP number that happens to have SMS service enabled. That VOIP number is not linked to any SIM card. My VOIP provider (VOIP.MS) uses two-factor authentication and, because it is not a cellular provider, is not going to fall prey to a SIM swap attempt. (See Being smart about SMS two-factor authentication.) This protective step costs me only 85¢ per month. I recommend it for all of your SMS two-factor authentication and I recommend it for your Signal service.
Four years ago I recommended to you (blog article) that you should start using Whatsapp. At the time, it was the best game in town. But things have changed. Whatsapp is now owned by Facebook. I have trust issues with Facebook. And there are several national-border firewalls that block Whatsapp.
Now I recommend Signal (Wikipedia article). Signal is end-to-end encrypted, but instead of using proprietary software the source code of which only Facebook gets to see, it uses open-source software. It uses PFS (perfect forward secrecy) meaning that when a session finishes, both ends discard the encryption key that got used. This means that even if an eavesdropper were to decrypt some past message, the decryption solution would be of no help in decrypting any subsequent message. I am interested to see that most of the national-border firewalls that block Whatsapp nonetheless permit passage of Signal traffic. See a Forbes magazine article entitled WhatsApp Soundly Beaten By Stunning New Alternative.
You can use your regular cellular telephone number as the identifier, which would be fine, or you could use a VOIP SMS number as the identifier, which I think is a better way to go, as I describe here. But no matter how you set it up, I recommend discontinuing all of your other ways of messaging, and moving your messaging to Signal.
If you’d like to try messaging me with Signal, drop me a note at my email address with your Signal identifier telephone number and I will fire off a Signal message to you.
Have you tried Signal? What do you think of it? Please post a message below.
When I was first in patent practice, the only way to pursue patent protection in Italy from a PCT application was to enter the European regional phase. There simply was no national-only route to Italy from the PCT.
And so things have remained for years and years, until July 1, 2020. On July 1, 2020 Italy, the eighth-largest economy in the world when ranked by gross domestic product, opened a national-phase route from PCT.
You can read all about this in the Italian National Chapter Annex in the PCT Applicant’s Guide.
It is interesting to think about fact patterns that might prompt a filer to make use of this filing path. Clearly one fact pattern that might call for this filing path is if the applicant particularly needs protection in Italy, more than in any other country that belongs to the EPO. Instead of spending all of the money that has to be spent for entering the regional phase in EPO, the filer might only need to spend the money for a national-phase entry in Italy.
Another fact pattern conceivably calling for an Italian national-phase entry might be if an applicant is particularly interested in obtaining utility model protection in Italy. Italy has utility model protection as one of its available protection mechanisms, while EPO does not.
Here are some of the most important things to know about Italian national-phase entry from the PCT:
- Italy is a 30-month Office for purposes of national-phase entry.
- You need to provide a translation of the PCT application into Italian as part of the national-phase entry process.
- For purposes of national-phase entry, DO/EO/IT recognizes Restoration of the Right of Priority, but only under the “due care” standard.
I have to imagine that this recent development must be very popular with patent firms in Italy, since it represents an opportunity to earn a professional fee carrying out a task which previously was not possible to carry out. Indeed I clicked around on the Internet and found many a patent firm in Italy that has posted an article on its web site letting readers know that the firm stands ready to attend to such an Italian national-phase filing.
Have you carried out such an Italian national-phase entry from a PCT? Do you plan to do so? If so, what circumstance is prompting such a plan? Please post a comment below.
In an earlier blog article I wrote about the “Captain May I?” problem. This is the problem that arises if a Hague Agreement filer (the filer of an international design application) designates the US, and if the filer claims priority from a non-US design application, and if the filer relies upon DAS as the way to provide the certified copy of the priority application to the USPTO. In that blog article I described that for two and a half years now, the USPTO has been aware of the fact that Hague filers often use Form DM/1 as a way to provide a priority claim and its DAS access code. USPTO interprets its own 37 CFR § 1.55 in such a way that the electronic copy of the priority application that USPTO retrieves from DAS, using that DAS access code, does not count as a “certified” copy unless the Hague filer also files an Application Data Sheet presenting the priority claim all over again.
It would have been helpful if USPTO had touched up 37 CFR § 1.55 a year ago, or two years ago, or two and a half years ago, to fix the perceived problem in the rule that leads to this otherwise completely unnecessary duplicate presentation of the priority claim. USPTO’s foot-dragging on this has led to an accumulation of two and a half years’ worth of issued US design patents that have a cloud over them if they claim foreign priority and made use of DAS.
Upon a bit of reflection I realize that this “Captain May I?” problem with USPTO’s interpretation of its own 37 CFR § 1.55 can also put a cloud over a US utility patent if it comes from a PCT application. Continue reading