On Tuesday, May 10, 2022, the European Patent Office will present a US-specific webinar on PCT topics. Every US practitioner and paralegal who does PCT work should attend. This webinar is free of charge. Continue reading “EPO webinar on PCT for US paralegals and practitioners”
What I wrote to a potential client just now
This morning an email message came in from a patent firm in a foreign country. The email message was from a patent firm that we have not worked with before. The email message told us that the patent firm has a client that filed a PCT application and is now interested in entering the US national phase. The email message said:
Therefore, we would appreciate if you please provide your fees with a breakdown of firm’s fees and government fees, and any other fee that the client would incur, from the filing to registration as soon as possible.
I will tell you what I wrote back to this patent firm. Continue reading “What I wrote to a potential client just now”
Director Vidal responds to Forty-two Patent Practitioners on PCT
(Update: we now have a phone call scheduled with the acting director of IPLA. Read about it here.)
It was at 7:25 AM today (Eastern Time) that Forty-two Patent Practitioners wrote to Director Vidal, with eight “asks” relating to the Patent Cooperation Treaty, and sent a courtesy PDF copy of the letter by email. Two minutes later, Director Vidal answered the email (see at right). She wrote:
Thank you for reaching out on this … . I appreciate it. I will review it shortly. Kathi.
Forty-two Patent Practitioners write to Director Vidal about PCT
(Update: we now have a phone call scheduled with the acting director of IPLA. Read about it here.)
(Update: Director Vidal has responded to acknowledge receiving the letter. See blog posting.)
Forty-two Patent Practitioners have written to Director Kathi Vidal in a letter dated April 26, 2022, asking her to help the USPTO get closer to providing world-class service to the PCT applicant community. You can see the signed letter here. Here are the “asks”: Continue reading “Forty-two Patent Practitioners write to Director Vidal about PCT”
Progress of PCT Receiving Offices towards participation in the DAS system
(Update: Forty-two Patent Practitioners have written to Director Vidal about this. See blog article.)
There is a recent development that the RO/TR (PCT Receiving Office of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office) will become a Depositing Office in the WIPO DAS system, with effect from June 1, 2022. Turkey’s decision to be trendy, modern and up-to-date in this regard brings to twenty-four the number of patent offices around the world whose Receiving Offices have become Depositing Offices in the DAS system.
This raises the natural question of what the progress is of the various PCT Receiving Offices in this important area. Which PCT Receiving Offices are trendy, modern and up-to-date? Which PCT Receiving Offices are laggards? It is instructive to rank the Receiving Offices based on how many applications get filed there, and then to check to see which of those ROs have taken the step of becoming a Depositing Office in the DAS system. Here is how things stand as of the present. (Preview: The USPTO fares poorly in this assessment.) Continue reading “Progress of PCT Receiving Offices towards participation in the DAS system”
Turkey joins the DAS system
The Turkish Patent and Trademark Office has announced that it will join the WIPO DAS system, with effect from June 1, 2022. Turkey’s participation will be as a Depositing Office, and the participation will be with respect to every possible type of application, as will be discussed. Continue reading “Turkey joins the DAS system”
WIPO provides another option for two-factor authentication in ePCT
If you want to do any of the good things in ePCT, you have to be logged in using two-factor authentication (“2FA”). (WIPO chooses to call this “strong authentication”.) One of the nice things is that WIPO offers several distinct kinds of 2FA that a user can choose from. Now WIPO has added yet another option for a type of 2FA that users can use. The newly added option is something they call “push notification”. It uses something called the ForgeRock Authenticator app. I think that many ePCT users will find this new “push notification” type of 2FA to be extremely quick and convenient and will end up choosing to use this kind of 2FA to the exclusion of all of the other kinds of 2FA. In this blog article:
- I will briefly describe this new “push notification” approach,
- I will explain how to install it and set it up,
- I will briefly remind the reader of the three other types of 2FA that WIPO offers for use with ePCT, listing a few factors for comparison among the four approaches for 2FA, and then
- I will talk about what I think are the best and smartest ways to use this new “push notification” approach.
If you have tried the ForgeRock Authenticator app with ePCT, please post a comment below.
Continue reading “WIPO provides another option for two-factor authentication in ePCT”
Please sign this PCT-related letter to the new Director of the USPTO
(The letter has been signed and has been sent to Director Vidal. You can see it here.)
Hello Colleagues. Here is a letter that I plan to send to Director Kathi Vidal. My goal is to send it on Tuesday, April 26, 2022. What this means is that I hope you will sign the letter between now and the close of business on Monday, April 25, 2022. Here are the “asks”: Continue reading “Please sign this PCT-related letter to the new Director of the USPTO”
How to be unwise when naming your firm
One of the dumbest things that you can do when you are naming your intellectual property firm, it turns out, is picking a name that is more than 35 characters in length. If you make this mistake, it means you often can’t get paid.
A related dumb thing is arranging to have a street address that exceeds 35 characters in length. This, too, might mean that you can’t get paid.
It turns out that there is a simple and quick fix for this problem, as I will mention at the end of this blog article.
A happy email to a client
Here, of course with necessary redactions, is the gist of an email that I sent to a patent client today. The main point of the email message was to try to explain why the dollar amount of a bill was much smaller than one would normally expect it to be. There was also a second communications goal for the email, which is to explain how it is that we apparently are going to get an allowance essentially instantly from an art unit that has a First Office Action Prediction that is “pegged” at 30 months and in which the true number, if the USPTO were to be candid about it, is surely a much higher number of months than 30. Continue reading “A happy email to a client”