Category: Patents

Posted on

Another fax bites the dust

More and more fax machines and fax numbers are biting the dust.  Here are the most recent announcements (see October 2018 PCT Newsletter):

  • The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand has just announced that it has discontinued use of its fax machine.
  • The Industrial Property Office of Slovakia has announced that with effect from January 14, 2019, it will discontinue the use of its fax machine.

These follow previous announcements from some months ago, for example:

  • On April 1, 2018, WIPO disconnected its fax machine for Madrid-related communications.
  • Oppedahl Patent Law Firm LLC stopped posting a fax number on July 21, 2018.
  • Some months ago WIPO announced that it is considering discontinuing its fax machines for PCT-related communications from the end of 2018.
  • Some month ago WIPO proposed to discontinue the use of facsimile communications for Hague Agreement communications from January 1, 2019.
Posted on

A guest post from an alert reader

[Note from Carl Oppedahl:  I received this text from a reader who suggested that I post it as a guest blog article.  It is posted anonymously, for reasons that will become clear.  Maybe you find it as interesting to read as I did!]

This is a long e-mail, but I hope that you will read it.  I want to thank you for the blog that you posted last Saturday, because it saved me from a major malpractice exposure.  Continue reading “A guest post from an alert reader”

Posted on

ISA/AU search fee dropped today

IP AustraliaThe fee to be paid by a US PCT filer for a search carried out by IP Australia dropped today, from $1722 to $1631.

I mentioned this in a previous blog post.

You will not need to worry about accidentally paying an incorrect fee amount, because the e-filing systems have already been updated to reflect the new fee amount.  For filers in RO/US, the EFS-Web system has already been updated.  And for filers in RO/IB, the ePCT system has already been updated.

Posted on

Malawi joins Madrid Protocol

click to enlarge
On September 25, 2018, the Government of Malawi deposited its instrument of accession to the Madrid Protocol with WIPO’s Director General, making Malawi the 102nd member of the Madrid System, which now covers 118 countries. The Protocol will enter into force for Malawi on December 25, 2018.

Starting from December 25, a trademark owner in Malawi can file a Madrid Protocol application to pursue protection in one or more Offices outside of Malawi.  And starting from that date, a trademark owner outside of Malawi can file a Subsequent Designation to Malawi (or can file a new Madrid Protocol application designating Malawi).

It is recalled that the Patent Cooperation Treaty entered into force on January 24, 1978, initially with 18 contracting states.  But perhaps not all readers appreciate that Malawi was one of those initial 18 contracting states for the PCT!  Saying this differently, Malawi was more trendy, modern, and up-to-date about the PCT than most of the 152 present-day members of the PCT.  Nobody joined PCT sooner than Malawi!

The two-letter code for Malawi is “MW”.

Posted on

It turns out there’s a name for this: lorem ipsum

When you file a PCT application in a Receiving Office other than the RO/IB, the Receiving Office will consider whether it is “competent” to handle that particular PCT application.  If the RO determines that it is non-competent, it will transfer the application to the RO/IB for further processing.  (The application does not lose its filing date;  the RO/IB will honor the filing date that had been given to the application by the first RO.)

Each RO determines its own conditions for “competency”.  In the case of RO/US, the two ways that the RO might decide that it lacks competency as to a particular PCT application are:

    • no applicant identified in the Request is either a resident or citizen of the US, or
    • the application is not in the English language.

Either of these situations will prompt RO/US to transfer a particular PCT application to the RO/IB.

But what, the long-suffering blog reader may ask at this point, does all of this have to do with “lorem ipsum“?  Yes, those are today’s fun questions — the interesting question “what is lorem ipsum?” and the even more interesting question “what does lorem ipsum have to do with Receiving Office procedure under the Patent Cooperation Treaty?” Continue reading “It turns out there’s a name for this: lorem ipsum”

Posted on

How the “new, safer and simpler log-in” works at the USPTO?

click to enlarge

I’ve received many questions from people who have tried to use the “new, safer and simpler log-in” for PAIR and EFS-Web.  (See the big blue footer that now appears whenever you try to use PAIR.)  Here’s what one very experienced USPTO customer asked me:

Last week I set up two-factor authentication with MyUSPTO, following the USPTO’s instructions.  Recently the big blue banner started appearing and I figured I had better start using the newer, safer and simpler log-in.  So today I needed to e-file form SB39 in one of my cases.  This is my time to try out the newer, safer and simpler log-in, right?  I logged in at the USPTO web site using my MyUSPTO user ID and password.  So far, so good.  Over on the right side, it says “File patents with EFS Web”.  So now that I have logged in, I click there and I reach the “unregistered e-filers” page.  There are some links but none of them will get me to the “registered” EFS-Web.  Finally I give up on MyUSPTO and I click on the old-fashioned link on the upper left and I click on “eFile (registered)” and that got me to the familiar old Entrust Java Applet page.  I e-filed my form SB39.

When that was done I went back to the MyUSPTO home page again hoping to figure out how I might have gotten to the “registered” EFS-Web page.  What did I miss?

I’ll explain. Continue reading “How the “new, safer and simpler log-in” works at the USPTO?”