It’s easy to gripe when the USPTO does something, or proposes to do something, that makes it harder to get a patent or harder to register a trademark. But it’s only fair to recognize those times when USPTO gets things right by making something easier or better. As a recent example, the USPTO got it right when it relaxed certain requirements for getting a patent application onto Track I. And the USPTO got it right when it relaxed rules for CPAs in design patent applications. Now USPTO has proposed rules which would make it easier (and cheaper) to get and renew a trademark registration.
What USPTO should do — make patent assignments viewable
USPTO, in response to pressure from the White House and from big companies that are recipients of cease-and-desist letters, recently published proposed rules with a stated goal of promoting transparency in ownership of patents. There are many things wrong (blog) with the proposed rules. But there is a simple thing that the USPTO could do to promote transparency in ownership of patents that would not require rulemaking at all — make patent assignments viewable.
Continue reading “What USPTO should do — make patent assignments viewable”
Comments on USPTO’s proposed rules on attributable ownership
The comment period closed April 24 and of course nearly all commenters filed their comments on the last possible day. USPTO has posted the comments.
Continue reading “Comments on USPTO’s proposed rules on attributable ownership”
A blog with a name – “Ant-like Persistence”
About two months ago I launched this blog. It took me a while, but now I have picked a name for the blog. The alert reader will recall Learned Hand’s (perhaps backhanded) compliment to patent practitioners, citing their “ant-like persistence” (Lyon v. Boh, 1 F.2d 48, 50 (S.D.N.Y.1924). With a nod to those patent practitioners who at the start of the twentieth century exhibited the ant-like persistence that inspired Learned Hand to write this colorful phrase, I hereby dub this the “Ant-like Persistence” blog.
Supreme Court on patent attorneys fees
Today the Supreme Court published two opinions, each dealing with attorneys’ fees in patent cases. See Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc. and Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.
Why not allocate USPTO examiner resources intelligently?
USPTO’s present practice is to try to make patent examiners examine cases pretty much in sequence according to their filing date. The oldest case gets examined first, more or less. (There are of course exceptions for example for cases that are on the Patent Prosecution Highway.) I suggest this is not the smartest way for USPTO to allocate its examination resources.
Continue reading “Why not allocate USPTO examiner resources intelligently?”
“PCT at the EPO” – important conference in October at The Hague
This October the European Patent Office will offer a two-day educational conference PCT at the EPO 2014. To learn more, and to register, go to the brochure page. This conference will take place at The Hague.
Continue reading ““PCT at the EPO” – important conference in October at The Hague”
PPH? Why not use Track I?
The EFS-Web listserv is for patent practitioners before the USPTO. A recent series of postings prompted me to offer a reminder of the potential benefits of PCT-PPH, and prompted a list member to ask:
If you are going to pay the cost of filing a PCT, why not just file TRACK I?
Here are my suggestions why I recommend not using Track I.
Intellectual property in pop culture — “Silicon Valley” on HBO
Today the followers of the HBO series Silicon Valley (yes, me among them) saw the third episode. In this episode, we encounter at least two intellectual property issues.
Continue reading “Intellectual property in pop culture — “Silicon Valley” on HBO”
When will the Board decide my patent appeal?
It’s been a while since I looked at the statistics of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to try to guess when the Board might get around to deciding an appeal. Here’s how it looks these days.
Continue reading “When will the Board decide my patent appeal?”