It’s time to get in your numbers for the 2025 toteboards

Hello readers.  It is now 2026 and this means it is time to get in your numbers for the 2025 toteboards:

The goal is to recognize and rank law firms in the US based upon the numbers of US design patents, US utility patents, US plant patents, and US trademark registrations each firm obtained for clients in 2025.

The questionnaires will close on Friday, February 13, 2026.

Here is a page suggesting how you might obtain these numbers.

Every year after I post the results of the toteboards, I get sad emails from firms that want me to accept their numbers late.  This would, of course, typically result in kicking other firms down in the rankings — other firms that got their numbers in on time.  Please help to reduce the number of such sad emails that I will receive this year.  Maybe you are a person at your firm who is responsible for getting these numbers in.  If so, please get your numbers in!  Otherwise, please forward this blog posting to somebody at your firm to make sure that somebody at your firm gets the numbers in for your firm.

You can see the previous toteboards here, going back to the earliest toteboard in 2012.

Over 3000 trademark registrations likely soon to be stricken from the Register

The USPTO has issued a show-cause order dated January 27, 2026 which you can see here.  The order has an Exhibit A listing 3361 trademark applications.  The order sets a thirty-day period (ending on February 26, 2026) in which an applicant in any one of the applications will be permitted to attempt to show cause why the application ought not to be brought to an end.  (Most of the listed applications have a status of “registered”, in which case the action taken by the USPTO will be to strike the registration from the Register.)

Barnes & Noble cheats Nook customers

map on page 979 of Churchill biography
click to enlarge

For years I have hoped that Barnes & Noble would, through its Nook service, serve as a competent ebook competitor to Amazon’s Kindle service.  My recent experience with Nook is a complete disappointment, as it is clear that Barnes & Noble cheats its Nook customers.  If you purchase a book from Barnes & Noble that has maps in it, and if you purchase the book on paper, the maps will be legible.  If you purchase that same book from Barnes & Noble as an ebook (through its Nook service), the maps will be illegible. See an example of this at right.

It is clear that Barnes & Noble’s process for converting a physical book to its Nook (ebook) format is defective.   Barnes & Noble says that it offers over 4.5 million ebooks.  I suspect that most of not all of its ebooks with maps inside are defective.  What needs to happen is that Barnes & Noble needs to redo the conversions of those books so that the maps are legible in the ebook format. Only then will customers be receiving what they paid for, namely legible maps. Continue reading “Barnes & Noble cheats Nook customers”

Hundreds of emails lost due to Microsoft crash

We all see in the news that earlier today (Thursday, January 22) Microsoft had some massive internal crash that affected lots of people who had selected Microsoft (aka Outlook) to handle their email service.

I have seen this in two ways.  A first way is that over the course of many hours, I was often unable to send an email to some person or another, and when I looked up the MX record (Wikipedia article) for that person’s domain, it would turn out to be “outlook.com”.  Meaning that the person to whom I was trying (unsuccessfully) to send email had selected Microsoft (aka Outlook) to handle their email service.

A second way is that our listserv server has been crippled by this outage.  In a an average day our listserv server (see past blog postings here and here and how to donate) sends out a few tens of thousands of email messages to the members of our listservs.  Each email gets sent once (in normal times) and that is it.

About one-third of the members of our listservs, it turns out, have selected Microsoft to be their service provider to handle their email.

Normally the chief way that this decision makes a problem for our listserv server is that Microsoft will wrongly make decisions to bounce our listserv emails as if they were spam (which of course they are not).  As for this problem, what is desperately needed is for each member of our listservs (each member that uses Microsoft for email service) to contact Microsoft and tell them to stop doing that.  (This includes, but is not limited to, telling Microsoft to whitelist our server’s IP address as described here.)

But a new and different way that this decision by many of our listserv members makes a problem for our listserv server arose today.  Today, in a very intermittent and unpredictable way, Microsoft just sort of professed to be unable to receive any email at all (no matter who was trying to send the email), inviting the would-be sender to try again later.  How much later, Microsoft did not say.

For our listserv server, this meant that our server would try again after a few minutes, and would get rebuffed by Microsoft, and would try again a few minutes later, and would get rebuffed by Microsoft again, and so on.  This led to a massive queue of many thousands of outbound email messages that needed to be re-attempted over and over again.  As for any particular listserv posting to some particular listserv member (who had selected Microsoft to handle that listserv member’s email service) this would eventually lead up to a reluctant decision by our server to abandon the efforts to send the email message.

Microsoft has not come out and said just what went wrong and has not come out and said they fixed it, whatever it was.  But from reviews of our logs of outbound listserv emails, I get the impression that Microsoft may have fixed whatever it was that went wrong.  Outbound listserv emails to listserv members who use Microsoft for their email seem to be back to their normal level of Microsoft randomly and wrongly discarding some percentage of our emails as if they were spam.  Instead of bouncing all emails, Microsoft is back to bouncing only some percentage of them.

Again, if you are a member of one or more of our listservs, and if the company that you selected to handle your email is Microsoft, then please please tell Microsoft to whitelist our server’s IP address as described here.)

Should the listserv member click on the link? Is it spearphishing?

Oppedahl Patent Law Firm LLC (“OPLF”) sponsors many listservs (email discussion groups for intellectual property professionals, here is a list of them), some with over a thousand members.   In recent days, hundreds of members of the listservs have started to receive email messages that prompted questions, such as:

I received an email, and I need to know whether it is a phishing hack.  If it’s legitimate, I will respond accordingly.

Another listserv member responded:

Got same thing yesterday.  Is real.  The question is why.

What do these emails mean?  Why are the listserv members receiving the emails?  How should listserv members respond?  In this blog posting, I try to answer these questions.  Continue reading “Should the listserv member click on the link? Is it spearphishing?”

USPTO’s Patent Center says: “There was an error”

there was an error
click to enlarge

I was paying an Issue Fee in Patent Center, I clicked “submit”, and at right you can see what happened next.  “There was an error”.

That’s it. The developers of Patent Center want me to know that “There was an error.”

Well, now I know. There was an error.

What really deserves comment here is the state of mind of the developers when they designed this error message. Somebody somewhere at the USPTO, when they were coding this line of code, said “well, I guess I need to choose the text of this error message.”  And this person decided that the way to explain what had gone wrong was to use these four words.

You could ask a twelve-year-old child “is this an acceptable error message?” and the child would say “no it is not”.  Continue reading “USPTO’s Patent Center says: “There was an error””

Listservs seem to be back in service

Hello listserv colleagues!  I think the listservs are more or less back in service.  But for about 30% of our listserv members, the member’s email service provider (ESP) is blocking our postings as spam.  If you are in that 30%, I urge you to direct your ESP to stop the blocking.  This may include whitelisting the new IP address or speaking frankly with your ESP.

And if you posted anything to any of the listservs since about December 21, I am sorry to say you will probably need to repost it.

It took a lot of my professional time to deal with this.  And the hosting service will cost a bit more in perpetuity.  I will gladly receive donations to help support this, as detailed below.

Details follow.  Continue reading “Listservs seem to be back in service”

Maybe you have not used this kind of two-factor authentication for Patent Center?

Trezor Safe 7Day-to-day users of Patent Center are accustomed to the USPTO’s requirement that you provide two-factor authentication (“2FA”) as part of the login process.  It turns out that you may be able to use your cryptocurrency hardware wallet as your 2FA at the USPTO. This blog article explains how to do it. Continue reading “Maybe you have not used this kind of two-factor authentication for Patent Center?”