One of the nice things about the patent system is that we can use the patent system to learn how stuff works. One of my favorite examples of this is the Zircon Stud Sensor. This product hit the market in about 1978, and I bought one of the first ones. Continue reading “Using patents to learn how stuff works – Stud Sensor”
TTABlog’s got legs!
Today marks the twelfth anniversary of the TTABlog. Yes, the first-ever posting of the TTABlog was on November 8, 2004. Congratulations and thanks to John L. Welch for all these years of service to the trademark community!
By comparison the Ant-Like Persistence blog is a mere 2½ years old.
Again, kudos and thanks to John!
USPTO’s backup server yet again crashed along with the main server
How disappointing. For many years now, USPTO has been repeatedly reminded of the need to provide a geographic separation between its main e-filing server (EFS-Web) and the backup (“Contingency”) server. The idea is that even if one of the servers were to crash, the other one would still be working. This is a matter of common sense. Any competent system designer would do this without having to be told.
USPTO has, however, failed to do this.
Readers will recall the incident on May 14, 2014 when both servers crashed and remained out of service for over eighteen hours. I blogged about this.
Readers will recall the incident on December 22, 2015 when both servers crashed and remained out of service for several days.
Now today, both servers crashed at 3:50 PM (Eastern Time) and remained out of service for over an hour and a half.
It is very very disappointing that USPTO has not taken this common-sense step of geographic separation despite years of reminders of the need to do so.
There is a second, extremely disappointing aspect of today’s double system crash. The USPTO’s system status page never got updated to indicate that anyone at USPTO was aware of the double system crash. It is so disappointing when some important USPTO system is broken and the system status page fails to indicate that USPTO is aware of the failure.
Some readers will recall my blog post of April 1, 2016 about the contingency server having been relocated to the Denver patent office. This was, unfortunately, only an April Fool’s Day posting. Maybe today’s double crash will finally prompt USPTO to do the right thing as described in that posting.
Recordation delays at USPTO’s Assignment Branch
When we e-file a new patent application in EFS-Web, the prize that we seek is the all-important application number. EFS-Web gives us this very important number within seconds of our clicking “submit”.
When we e-file an assignment in EPAS (the system for e-filing patent assignments for recordation), the prize that we seek is the all-important reel and frame number. But the EPAS system does not give us this very important number right away. Usually it takes a few days.
Why does it take a few days? Why does USPTO not provide the all-important reel and frame number within seconds of our clicking “submit”?
A cynic would imagine that the explanation is an LMR (labor-management relations) issue. Maybe the USPTO feels it cannot do away with these jobs.
I suppose that’s not the explanation. I suppose the USPTO feels the need to check the uploaded PDF to see if it contains scandalous subject matter. And perhaps to check to see whether the document appears on its face to be an assignment (rather than, say, a newspaper clipping).
Normally this takes two or three days. But we have an assignment that we e-filed on October 10, 2016. Almost a month has passed and still we do not have the all-important reel and frame number.
So we phoned up the Assignment Branch. Once a couple of weeks ago and again today. The people who answer the phone there are very nice. They did not fix the problem, but they are very nice. It seems that our submission is still “in process”.
This particular assignment conveys several dozen properties. I asked the Assignment Branch person whether this might explain the delay. She said no, the delay is not due to the large number of properties. She also said no, it is not tied to the type of conveyance. It is just the large number of assignments that had been e-filed.
This actually doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. We have e-filed at least a dozen assignments since that one on October 10, and in each case we received the all-important reel and frame number within a couple of days.
So I don’t really understand why this one is outstanding since October 10.
How old is your oldest assignment that does not yet have a reel and frame number? Please post a comment below.
Midnight at WIPO returns to normal
A week ago I blogged that filers filing things at WIPO would have an extra hour to get a same-day filing date. As of a week ago, you could file as late as 5 PM Mountain Time and still get a same-day filing date.
Now today things return to normal. To get a same-day filing date at WIPO, you will need to file by 4 PM.
Errors in USPTO patent application filing receipts
The EFS-Web listserv is a place where US patent practitioners discuss problems and sometimes help each other to solve problems. (To learn more or to join the listserv, click here.) Here was a question posed today by one of the members of the listserv:
Apologies for the interruption/venting, but I’ve reached somewhat of a breaking point with errors in official Filing Receipts. My understanding was that fillable ADS forms were being used to expedite entry of data by the Office. However, based on the number of typos and missing information we are seeing on an ongoing basis, I imagine someone is manually typing this information in Office side. Is this still the case?
Sure we have a form request for obtaining a corrected filing receipt, we say the original ADS had the correct information, we show the corrections on the receipt, etc., but addressing Office errors is becoming a time sink. This is separate from the time we take to cross-check every receipt that comes in, which is redundant of the time we take in reviewing the original ADS to begin with.
Is there something that I am missing?
If it matters, these are 371 filings and I confirm that fillable forms are submitted via EFS, i.e., they are not scans/images. Any insight is much appreciated.
This listserv member is right, of course. USPTO mistakes in official Filing Receipts impose a substantial cost upon patent practitioners. In this blog article I will talk about some of the sources of USPTO mistakes and what the patent practitioner can do to try to reduce the number of such mistakes.
Continue reading “Errors in USPTO patent application filing receipts”
Real Party in Interest – a rulemaking that went away
Back in January of 2014, the USPTO published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which might have led to rules requiring each patent applicant to go to quite a lot of trouble regarding a disclosure to the USPTO of any “real party in interest” connected with a patent or patent application. I filed comments explaining why I thought the proposed rules were ill-advised. My comments concluded with this:
The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. et al., 539 US 23 (2003), considered one litigant’s suggestion as to the supposed need to give attribution to everyone who was connected with a literary work. The Court said:
We do not think the Lanham Act requires this search for the source of the Nile and all its tributaries.
I do not think the aims of this rulemaking package justify imposing upon each patent applicant the burden of investigating the source of the Nile and all its tributaries, and repeating that investigation every three months.
I don’t know whether my comments made a difference. I like to think that maybe they did. But anyway the practical consequence is that the USPTO seems to have abandoned this rulemaking effort.
Readers of this blog are invited to print out the comments that I filed. Keep them handy for use when insomnia strikes.
Comments welcome.
Good news for a domain name owner
When parties fight over who should own an Internet domain name, sometimes it is easy to see who should win and who should lose. Sometimes it’s clear that the domain name owner is a cybersquatter, and the complainant should win. But other times it is the opposite — the domain name owner is innocent of any wrongdoing and what’s going on is that a covetous party wishes they could wrest the domain name away from its owner. This blog article describes such a case, with an outcome that I find particularly gratifying.
USPTO needs to accept “due care” restoration requests
The USPTO needs to be willing to consider requests for the restoration of the right of priority based upon the “due care” standard. This will help US filers who missed the 12-month priority period, and whose foreign-filing plans include the European Patent Office or any of twenty-eight other patent offices that apply the “due care” standard.
US practitioners (including yours truly) have been asking USPTO to make this change for several years now. in January of 2015, AIPLA asked USPTO make this change. It is now October of 2016 and USPTO has still not made this change. It is hoped that this blog article will serve as a reminder to the USPTO that this change is needed. I will explain.
Continue reading “USPTO needs to accept “due care” restoration requests”
New leadership for AIPLA Industrial Designs Committee
It’s October, which means it’s time for the AIPLA annual meeting.
And it’s at the AIPLA annual meeting that AIPLA committees get new leadership. Each committee position (chair, vice-chair) normally has a term of two years. So in a particular October a two-year term might be half way through or might be beginning. About half of AIPLA’s committees thus change leadership in a particular October.
This year is the year for the Industrial Designs Committee to change leadership. The news is that the new chair of the Industrial Designs Committee is Richard Stockton of Banner & Witcoff, and the new vice-chair is James Aquilina of Design IP.
Richard and James are each very active in the world of design patents, having filed and prosecuted many design patent applications. Richard’s firm, Banner & Witcoff, has ranked in first place in the 2012 US Design Patent Toteboard, the 2013 US Design Patent Toteboard, the 2014 US Design Patent Toteboard, and the 2015 US Design Patent Toteboard.
This coming two years will be an important time for industrial designs. New countries, including China, are likely to join the Hague Agreement. Important court cases, including a Supreme Court case in Apple v. Samsung, are likely to be decided. It will be good to have Richard’s and James’s leadership.