Author: Carl

Posted on

Save the date — AIPLA’s PCT Seminar 2017

The dates have been set for the 21st annual AIPLA PCT Seminar.  The Seminar will take place in Arlington, Virginia on Monday and Tuesday, July 24 and 25, 2017.

Save the date for this seminar.  There’s nothing quite like this seminar, which has representatives of patent offices as well as experienced private practitioners.  Here are comments from two who attended:

“Each and every presenter was incredibly knowledgeable and provided us with invaluable information.”

“Excellent panel.”

Have you attended one of the twenty previous AIPLA PCT Seminars?  Did you find it helpful?  Please post a comment below.

 

Posted on

Building a guitar compressor pedal

The other day we had soldering class at Oppedahl Patent Law Firm LLC.  Everybody at the firm received a nice soldering station and soldering tools and a toolbox to keep everything in.  We assembled several do-it-yourself kits that required soldering.  Some of our people already knew how to solder and got through the kits pretty quickly, and others got to learn how to solder for the first time.  Continue reading “Building a guitar compressor pedal”

Posted on

A curate’s egg

Bishop: “I’m afraid you’ve got a bad egg, Mr Jones”
Curate: “Oh, no, my Lord, I assure you that parts of it are excellent!”

I’ve been teaching patent law as an adjunct professor at University of Denver law school for some twenty years, and every one of my students over the years has heard my recommendation that they subscribe to The Economist. I think The Economist offers a very helpful non-American perspective on events of the day.

Today, reading The Economist, I learned the term a “curate’s egg”.  As Wikipedia explains, a curate’s egg is something that is mostly or partly bad, but partly good.  The term has its origin in a cartoon published in 1895 in the British humor magazine Punch.  Drawn by George du Maurier, it pictures a timid-looking curate eating breakfast in his bishop’s house. The bishop says:

I’m afraid you’ve got a bad egg, Mr Jones.

The curate, desperate not to offend his eminent host and ultimate employer, replies:

Oh no, my Lord, I assure you that parts of it are excellent!

A Google search for the term “curate’s egg” yields over a hundred thousand hits.

 

Posted on

Patent firms that might get left out of the utility patent tote board

Here are some firms that were ranked in last year’s Utility Patent Tote Board, but which have not yet responded for this year’s Utility Patent Tote Board.

If you know somebody at one of these firms, you might want to pass this along to them.  The response date has been extended from January 20, 2017 to January 23, 2017.  To respond, click here.

Andrus Intellectual Property Law, LLP
Antoinette M. Tease, P.L.L.C.
Armstrong Teasdale
Baker Botts
Banner & Witcoff
Blakely Sokoloff
Brinks Gilson
Brownstein Hyatt
Bryan Cave
Buchanan Ingersoll
Christie Parker
Cochran Freund
Conley Rose
Crossley Patent Law
Dorsey & Whitney
Drinker Biddle
Duft Bornsen
Faegre Baker Daniels
Fenwick & West
Finnegan Henderson
Fish & Richardson
Fitzpatrick Cella
Foley & Lardner
Greenberg Traurig
Hamilton DeSanctis
Hartman Patents PLLC
Hauptman Ham, LLP
Head, Johnson & Kachigian, PC
HIPLegal LLP
Hoffman Warnick LLC
Hogan Lovells
Holland & Hart
HolzerIPLaw
IP&L Solutions
Juneau & Mitchell
K&L Gates
Kain Spielman
Katten Muchin Rosenman
Kenyon & Kenyon
Kilpatrick Townsend
Klaas Law O’Meara
Knobbe Martens
Ladas & Parry
Larson & Anderson
Lathrop & Gage
Law Office of Robert Rose
Leason Ellis
Lemaire Patent Law Firm
Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd.
Macheledt Bales LLP
Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP
McDermott Will
Merchant & Gould
Morgan Lewis
Morrison & Foerster
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
Neugeboren O’Dowd PC
Nixon Peabody
Nixon Vanderhye
Norred Law, PLLC
Novak Druce
Oblon McClelland
Ollila Law Group
Patentfile, LLC
Patterson Thuente
Patwrite Law
Pepper Hamilton
Perkins Coie
Pillsbury Winthrop
Polsinelli PC
Polson Intellectual Property Law
Pritzkau Patent Group, LLP
Pryor Cashman
RatnerPrestia
Reed Smith
Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office
Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP
Santangelo Law Offices
Schwegman Lundberg
Scully Scott
Setter Roche
Sheridan Ross
Stass & Halsey
Steptoe & Johnson
Sterne Kessler
Sughrue Mion
Swanson & Bratschun
Vedder Price
Wenderoth
Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian, LLP
Winston & Strawn LLP
Wolf Greenfield
Workman Nydegger

 

Posted on

First of the 2016 Tote Boards posted

The 2016 Design Patent Toteboard has been posted.

The response periods for the 2016 Utility Patent and 2016 Trademark toteboards is being extended from January 20 to January 23.

Several well-known firms that do trademark prosecution have not yet responded.  If you know someone at one of these firms, you might want to pass along a reminder to them.  These include:

  • K&L Gates
  • Leydig Voit
  • Banner & Witcoff
  • Head, Johnson & Kachigian
  • Antionette M Tease PLLC
  • Andrus Intellectual Property Law
  • Lee & Hayes PLLC
  • Chernoff Vilhauer LLP
  • Dorsey & Whitney
  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • Arent Fox LLP
  • Baker Botts L.L.P.
  • Fross Zelnick
Posted on

USPTO tackling the “balaclava problem” (part 2)

In the previous blog article I described the “balaclava problem” and gave an example of a real-life trademark application presenting this problem.  In that blog article I described one of the two ways that the USPTO is trying to attack the “balaclava problem”.  In this blog article I describe a second way that the USPTO is trying to attack this problem.

Continue reading “USPTO tackling the “balaclava problem” (part 2)”

Posted on

USPTO tackling the “balaclava problem” (part 1)

Trademark filers are familiar with the “balaclava problem”.  When I say the “balaclava problem” I mean the many US trademark registrations in which the listing of identified goods or services in a particular trademark class is a listing of all possible goods or services in that class.  The USPTO has launched two recent initiatives which are intended to try to fight the “balaclava problem”.  This blog article discusses one of the initiatives and the next blog article discusses the second of the initiatives.

Let’s first give a real-life illustration of the “balaclava problem”.  As an example consider the 721 items of goods in class 25 (clothing) for this application, which is presently pending before the USPTO: Continue reading “USPTO tackling the “balaclava problem” (part 1)”