Carl Oppedahl's blog
The USPTO has made some preparations for the eventual accession by the USPTO to the Hague Agreement. One preparation is picking the new “series code” (my blog here) that USPTO will use to denote that a US application came from Hague. Another preparation is a new search functionality in PAIR, as you may see in the screen shot.
Those whose practice includes “inbound” Madrid Protocol trademark applications are accustomed to the series code “79”. When you see a USPTO application number that starts with “79” you know that it is a trademark application number and that it came to the USPTO from the International Bureau of WIPO. Someone who filed a Madrid Protocol trademark application (in a place other than the USPTO) must have designated the US.
Now the USPTO has picked the series code that it will use for Hague Agreement applications.
Continue reading “New USPTO “series code” for Hague Agreement cases”
(See update posting here.)
The Hague system, as most readers know, is the one-stop shopping system for filing applications to protect industrial designs around the world. It is somewhat of a counterpart in the industrial design world to the PCT (for utility patents) and Madrid Protocol (for trademarks). What is the progress of the US toward the Hague system? When will people in the US actually be able to file Hague applications? When will people around the world be able to designate the US when they file Hague applications? Continue reading “US progress toward the Hague Agreement”
The Canadian parliament has taken up a bill which, if enacted, would permit Canada to join the Hague Agreement (one-stop filing of applications for protection of industrial designs) and the Patent Law Treaty.
There has also been some progress in Canada toward eventually joining the Madrid Protocol (one-stop filing of applications for protection of trademarks).
There are a lot of annoying things about an email that says “see attached letter”. I’ll basically just be ranting in this posting. Feel free to skip it.
I should emphasize first that if somebody is paying my firm to do work, I will cheerfully receive any and all “attached letters” that they wish to send. The non-US patent firm that has sent me dozens of patent applications to be filed in the US can send any email in whatever way they want to sent it.
What I am talking about is the non-US intellectual property firms, and the service providers (annuity services for example) that are receiving money from my firm. These are the people I am complaining about when I say I am annoyed by an email that says “see attached letter”.
Why am I annoyed by this?
The Republic of Korea has joined the Hague Agreement.
(Further update: We win! As you can see here, the Commissioner answered our letter. The USPTO says it will stop the foot-dragging on retrieval of electronic certified copies.)
(Update: A letter got sent on February 22, 2020 to the Commissioner for Patents at the USPTO, asking the USPTO to stop its foot-dragging on retrieval of electronic certified copies from DAS and PDX. See blog post.)
If you fail to get your certified copy of your foreign priority application into the hands of the USPTO by sixteen months, you’ve lost your priority claim and will have to file a petition to get it back. Suppose you try to do this electronically and inadvertently get it wrong? USPTO’s present policy is to wait until past sixteen months to let you know. That’s not nice, and USPTO needs to change its policy.
Continue reading “USPTO could be nicer to PDX and DAS users”
About two months ago I launched this blog. It took me a while, but now I have picked a name for the blog. The alert reader will recall Learned Hand’s (perhaps backhanded) compliment to patent practitioners, citing their “ant-like persistence” (Lyon v. Boh, 1 F.2d 48, 50 (S.D.N.Y.1924). With a nod to those patent practitioners who at the start of the twentieth century exhibited the ant-like persistence that inspired Learned Hand to write this colorful phrase, I hereby dub this the “Ant-like Persistence” blog.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014 will be Design Day 2014. This is an all-day program, free of charge, at the USPTO in Alexandria, Virginia.
Design Day is a very special annual event, co-sponsored by the USPTO, the IP Section of the American Bar Association, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), and the Industrial Designers Society of America.
Topics presented will include:
As we all know, USPTO has set up many initiatives in recent years to try to reduce the 
backlog of unexamined patent applications. Many practitioners are familiar with most of these initiatives. It seems, however, that very few patent practitioners are aware of an initiative announced recently by the USPTO. The initiative, called QDPP or “Quick Disposal Pilot Program”, will essentially instantly eliminate approximately two percent of the backlog, and should lead to some applications being allowed very quickly.
Continue reading “A little-known USPTO initiative to reduce the backlog”