I’ve received my first status monitoring results from USPTO’s new TAD (Trademark Application Docket) system. The system worked, so far as I can tell. I’ll describe how it went. Continue reading “First results from USPTO’s Trademark Application Docket system”
A new way to monitor the trademark Official Gazette
The USPTO has quietly released a new way to monitor the trademark Official Gazette. (Note that this is not at all the same thing as the trademark application monitoring system that I discussed in the previous blog article! This blog article is talking about a system for monitoring the Official Gazette, and the previous blog article is talking about a system for monitoring TSDR.)
Continue reading “A new way to monitor the trademark Official Gazette”
A new way to monitor US trademark filings
The USPTO has quietly rolled out a new system that permits users to monitor the status of trademark filings. The USPTO’s new system has a few features in common with Feathers!, the well-known software for monitoring US trademark filings. I hope trademark practitioners will give the USPTO’s new system a try and post comments below, to report their experience.
Continue reading “A new way to monitor US trademark filings”
Get your numbers in for the 2016 US utility patent tote board
A year ago I published the 2015 Utility Patent Toteboard. Now it’s time to finalize and publish the 2016 Utility Patent Toteboard.
The goal of this toteboard is to list the firms that helped clients to obtain US utility patents in 2016. It will rank the firms according to the number of US utility patents obtained. Respondents are asked to report only US utility patents for which the firm is listed on the front page of the granted patent. Please respond by January 20, 2017.
To respond, click here.
Get your numbers in for the 2016 US trademark registration toteboard
It’s that time of year again. A year ago we published the 2015 US Trademark Registration Tote Board. Now it’s time to get the numbers in for the 2016 US Trademark Registration Tote Board.
The goal of this toteboard is to list the firms that helped clients obtain US trademark registrations in 2016. The toteboard seeks to list US trademark registrations granted in 2016. The closing date for the questionnaire will be January 20, 2017.
To learn more and to report your numbers, please click here.
Get your numbers in for the 2016 design patent toteboard
A year ago I published the 2015 Design Patent Toteboard. Now it’s time to finalize and publish the 2016 Design Patent Toteboard.
The goal of this toteboard is to list the firms that helped clients to obtain US design patents in 2016. It will rank the firms according to the number of US design patents obtained. Respondents are asked to report only US design patents for which the firm is listed on the front page of the granted patent. Please respond by January 15, 2017.
To respond, click here.
Searching authority fee changes – a reminder
As a reminder, many PCT searching authorities will have fee changes taking effect today. You can read about them in my blog posting from a month ago.
Why aren’t there more express abandonments?
Now and again we will receive instructions from a client (or foreign patent firm) to incur no further expense in a particular patent application. In such a patent application, what sometimes happens later is that we receive an Office Action. This prompted me to share a few thoughts about whether the applicant should file an Express Abandonment in such a case.
Continue reading “Why aren’t there more express abandonments?”
P3 is almost gone
The Post-Prosecution Pilot program at the USPTO (“P3”) is almost gone. Continue reading “P3 is almost gone”
After more than a year, USPTO still hand-keying patent issue information
A year ago I reported that USPTO’s then-new system for paying patent issues fees was a disappointment. That then-new system was a web-based system in which the practitioner could provide issue information in character form. The hope of course is that USPTO would auto-load the issue information into USPTO’s systems. For example if the practitoner correctly typed the assignee name into the web-based system, then the hope is that the assignee name would be correctly spelled on the front page of the issued patent. And similarly if the “attorney, agent or firm” information were correctly typed into the web-based system, then the hope is that the “attorney, agent or firm” information would be correctly spelled on the front page of the issued patent.
And as of a year ago, the disappointing news was that the USPTO was hand-keying this issue information into USPTO’s systems. The result at that time for our office was a discouraging 20% error rate.
I had hoped that in the year that has passed since USPTO’s release of this web-based system for paying patent issue fees, USPTO would finally have gotten around to setting it up so that the issue information would auto-load into USPTO’s systems. Continue reading “After more than a year, USPTO still hand-keying patent issue information”