Author: Carl

Posted on

US progress toward the Hague Agreement

(See update posting here.)

The Hague system, as most readers know, is the one-stop shopping system for filing applications to protect industrial designs around the world.  It is somewhat of a counterpart in the industrial design world to the PCT (for utility patents) and Madrid Protocol (for trademarks).  What is the progress of the US toward the Hague system?  When will people in the US actually be able to file Hague applications?  When will people around the world be able to designate the US when they file Hague applications? Continue reading “US progress toward the Hague Agreement”

Posted on

Canada takes a step toward Hague and PLT

The Canadian parliament has taken up a bill which, if enacted, would permit Canada to join the Hague Agreement (one-stop filing of applications for protection of industrial designs) and the Patent Law Treaty.

There has also been some progress in Canada toward eventually joining the Madrid Protocol (one-stop filing of applications for protection of trademarks).

Posted on

$7M judgment against patent law firm

In an order dated October 8, 2014, the US district court in Brooklyn has rendered a judgment of about $7 million against a Virginia patent law firm.  The award is tied to an allegation that the firm failed to pursue US patent rights for a client despite undertaking to do so.

There was a box that could have been checked on a patent office form, that might well have kept this lawsuit from happening had it been checked.

Continue reading “$7M judgment against patent law firm”

Posted on

Filing in EPO with a priority claim to a US application? If so, read this!

Sometimes when you log in at EFS-Web there will be a sort of “announcement of the day” on the main EFS-Web page.  Recently there was an announcement that said that US patent applicants need to be sure to file Form PTO/SB/69 to avoid getting in trouble with the European Patent Office.  I had never heard of Form PTO/SB/69 and had no idea that without it there was some risk of getting in trouble with the EPO.  So I looked into the matter and spoke with people at EPO and at USPTO about this.

Maybe you already know all about Form PTO/SB/69 in which case no need to read further.  Otherwise I invite you to read on.

Continue reading “Filing in EPO with a priority claim to a US application? If so, read this!”

Posted on

Bilateral priority document exchange between USPTO and Chinese patent office

USPTO and the Chinese patent office (“SIPO”) have quietly implemented a bilateral system for automated exchange of electronic priority documents.  This system, launched on October 8, 2014 bypasses the legacy approach through DAS (WIPO’s document access service).  Importantly, for inbound PDX to the USPTO, the four-character access code will no longer be needed.

Continue reading “Bilateral priority document exchange between USPTO and Chinese patent office”

Posted on

For those entering the US national phase on and after September 16, 2014 … recall the “check the box” problem

We all recall the nightmare of having to figure out whether or not to “check the box”.  You know the box that I am talking about:

ctb

Well, a nice member of our PCT listserv pointed out today that September 16, 2014 is an interesting day for the “check the box” problem.  I wonder how many readers of this blog already know why this is?

Continue reading “For those entering the US national phase on and after September 16, 2014 … recall the “check the box” problem”

Posted on

Dontcha just hate “see attached letter”?

There are a lot of annoying things about an email that says “see attached letter”.  I’ll basically just be ranting in this posting.  Feel free to skip it.

I should emphasize first that if somebody is paying my firm to do work, I will cheerfully receive any and all “attached letters” that they wish to send.  The non-US patent firm that has sent me dozens of patent applications to be filed in the US can send any email in whatever way they want to sent it.

What I am talking about is the non-US intellectual property firms, and the service providers (annuity services for example) that are receiving money from my firm.  These are the people I am complaining about when I say I am annoyed by an email that says “see attached letter”.

Why am I annoyed by this?

Continue reading “Dontcha just hate “see attached letter”?”