USPTO’s $400 non-DOCX penalty and car rental collision damage waivers

Patent applicants and practitioners continue to resent the USPTO’s $400 penalty that it plans to impose upon any patent applicant that has the temerity to try to establish a PDF file as the “controlling” document for the patent application being filed.  The penalty was going to start a few days ago, on January 1, 2023.  The USPTO blinked and has postponed the penalty to a starting date of April 3, 2023.  As of right now, that is when this penalty will begin.

The other day I realized that there is a pretty strong analogy to make here between this $400 penalty and another bane of daily life — car rental companies gouging renters with the “collision damage waiver”.  Continue reading “USPTO’s $400 non-DOCX penalty and car rental collision damage waivers”

Director Vidal could have said “thank you”

On October 11, 2022, through the work of Krista Jacobsen, the following two letters were sent to USPTO Director Kathi Vidal:

    • A first letter, signed by twenty-seven patent practitioners, was about erroneous information in official Filing Receipts regarding publication dates.  You can see the signed letter here.
    • A second letter, signed by twenty-five patent practitioners, was about missing information in official Filing Receipts regarding whether or not a Foreign Filing License has been granted.  You can see the signed letter here.

Today, January 6, 2023, the USPTO published a document bearing Director Vidal’s signature and dated January 3, 2023.  It seems the USPTO plans to publish the document in the January 24, 2023 Official Gazette.  You can see the document here and it is archived here.  Director Vidal’s Notice admits that in March of 2022, the USPTO broke something about how it generates filing receipts, so that there were many FFL-related defects in many filing receipts thereafter, and filing receipts in design patent applications and provisional applications got mailed that wrongly showed a projected publication date.  (The USPTO does not publish design patent applications or provisional patent applications.)  The notice admits that the USPTO did not fix what was broken until October 18, 2022.  After that, the USPTO mailed out corrected filing receipts to replace the filing receipts that failed to say that an FFL had already been granted.

For several reasons, including knowledge of internal communications at the USPTO after Krista sent the two letters, I believe that it was specifically Krista’s two letters that made the USPTO aware of the problems, and I believe that her two letters were the direct cause of the USPTO fixing its broken system.

What I find extremely disappointing is that Director Vidal’s notice fails to say “thank you”.  It fails to acknowledge the communications that brought this problem to her attention.

In Director Vidal’s notice, the USPTO pretends that it was the USPTO that “discovered” these problems.

It would not have cost a penny for Director Vidal to add a sentence to her notice, saying something like “The USPTO thanks a group of patent practioners whose letters to the USPTO prompted the corrective action by the USPTO.”

I think the right thing now would be for Director Vidal to prepare and mail a letter of thanks to Krista, and through her, to the more than two dozen signers of the two letters.

USPTO blinked on the non-DOCX surcharge

(Correction — I am told that both AIPLA and IPO also contacted the USPTO privately in recent weeks about this problem.)

It looks like maybe the USPTO blinked on the non-DOCX surcharge problem, at least a little.  What forced the USPTO to blink was a letter from 117 patent practitioners pushing back on a December 20, 2022 Federal Register notice.  The notice maintained and doubled down on January 1, 2023 as a date that all US patent filers would face a harsh choice — incur substantial risks of losses of patent rights due to the DOCX program, or pay $400 to be able to file a patent application in a way that eliminated those substantial risks.  The only visible pushbacks on this December 20, 2022 FR notice were:

      • the above-mentioned letter signed by 117 practitioners, and
      • ceaseless personal efforts by Bradley Forrest, a partner at the Schwegman firm.

In this blog article I briefly describe the state of play on the DOCX program as it now appears.
Continue reading “USPTO blinked on the non-DOCX surcharge”

USPTO responses will be timely on Tuesday, January 3

Monday, January 2 will be a federal holiday in the District of Columbia.  This means the USPTO will be closed on Monday, January 2.  This means that any response or action that would have been due at the USPTO on Saturday, December 31,  or Sunday, January 1, or Monday, January 2 will be timely if carried out on Tuesday, January 3.

The US Postal Service will likewise be closed on Monday, January 2.

USPTO responses will be timely on Tuesday, December 27

Monday, December 26 will be a federal holiday in the District of Columbia.  This means the USPTO will be closed on Monday, December 26.  This means that any response or action that would have been due at the USPTO on Saturday, December 24,  or Sunday, December 25, or Monday, December 26 will be timely if carried out on Tuesday, December 27.

The US Postal Service will likewise be closed on Monday, December 26.