USPTO has many e-commerce systems that are well known to practitioners and applicants — EFS-Web for e-filing patent documents, TEAS for e-filing trademark documents, ESTTA for e-filing TTAB documents to name three examples. But I find it remarkable how few practitioners and applicants know anything about USPTO’s Financial Profile system. The Financial Profile system is (or should be) a central part of the bookkeeping workflow for any patent firm or trademark firm and for any corporate patent department or corporate trademark department.
Many US patent filers always file their PCT applications in RO/US, and many US patent filers don’t know how to file a PCT application anywhere else (such as RO/IB). But during the four-day period from March 14 to March 17, smart US patent filers are filing their PCT applications in RO/IB using ePCT rather than RO/US using EFS-Web.
USPTO will be closed Monday March 3.
Anything that you might have needed to file on Monday March 3 to meet a USPTO due date may be postponed until Tuesday March 4.
The USPTO has published proposed rules which would impose upon all patent applicants and upon all patent owners a new burden — an obligation to carry out recurring investigations as to “attributable owners” of patent applications and patents, and to report the list of “attributable owners” to the USPTO. The proposed rules would subject each patent owner to the grave risk, at litigation time, that a court might deem the underlying patent application to have gone abandoned during its pendency before the USPTO due to a real or imagined error in the reported list of “attributable owners”. The investigation and reporting burden would, for many corporations, add thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of prosecuting a US patent application.
Comments are due by April 24. Any corporation that owns US patents should read the proposed rules and, I suggest, should file comments by the due date. Likewise any patent practitioner that represents corporations before the USPTO should read the proposed rules and, I suggest, should file comments by the due date. I have filed comments with the USPTO. Continue reading “File your comments by April 24 on proposed patent applicant filing burdens”
(Updated to reflect that Forty-two patent practitioners have asked Director Vidal to make it so. See blog post and update below.)
A member of the PCT Listserv asks “does USPTO give you the same Examiner in a US national application and in the corresponding PCT application?” This is a very interesting question and has several sub-questions to it. Continue reading “Does the USPTO give you the same examiner as in the PCT?”
Well, we are starting to see the work product of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, whose goal for many of the new AIA proceedings is to dispose of them within a year. Here’s the decision in CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc. v. Frontline Technologies, Inc. (Case CBM2012-00005), instituted January 23, 2013 and decided just under a year later on January 21, 2014.
CRS wanted to invalidate some of the claims of US Patent 6,675,151. Doing so in court would likely have cost half a million dollars or more. CRS picked the Covered Business Method approach and (I’d guess) probably spent well under a quarter million dollars. And prevailed.
What I would have hoped is that the decision might help to clarify what practitioners need to do to draft patent applications that will survive post-grant review (whether before the PTAB or before the courts). I don’t think I got my wish. Here’s why I feel this way. Continue reading “PTAB speaks on 35 USC § 101 — or is it § 103? CRS v Frontline”
On Monday, March 24, I will be speaking in East Lansing, Michigan at the 2014 Intellectual Property Law Spring Seminar. My topic is “PCT Practice Tactics and Strategies.”
The 49th Annual Corporate Patent Seminar will take place April 9-11 in Chicago. I will be speaking on several topics including Restoration of Priority and the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
In our office we try to track pretty closely the status of the cases that we have put on the Patent Prosecution Highway. It is a rare PPH case that reaches its first Office Action without at least one problem within USPTO that requires us to poke the USPTO. Today one of our PPH cases presented a problem that we had not seen before — a big delay in examination because the USPTO misclassified the case. Continue reading “when USPTO classifies an application incorrectly”