Author: Carl

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)”

Posted on

USPTO addresses asymmetry in the correction of check-the-box mistakes

Ever since March 16, 2013 there has been a profound asymmetry in the manner in which check-the-box mistakes could be corrected by the practitioner.  For more than three years now, it has been easy (according to USPTO’s rules) to correct a mistake if it happens in one direction, and impossible to correct the mistake if it happens in the opposite direction.  USPTO has now announced a policy that is intended to reduce this profound asymmetry. Continue reading “USPTO addresses asymmetry in the correction of check-the-box mistakes”

Posted on

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”

Posted on

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”