Category: Patents

Posted on

USPTO’s art units with the smallest backlogs

In a previous blog article I listed the fifty art units at the USPTO (out of 514 art units) that are “pegged”.  What this means is that the backlog for the art unit is so great that it is longer than 30 months, and the USPTO does not report a number bigger than 30 for the backlog.

What the alert reader might ask is, which are the art units with the smallest backlog?  Here is a list of the 49 art units which, in July of 2018, have a backlog of seven months or less. Continue reading “USPTO’s art units with the smallest backlogs”

Posted on

ISA/JP becomes easier for US filers to use

Japan Patent OfficeThe way it has been in the past, if a US PCT applicant were to make use of the Japan Patent Office as an International Searching Authority, the applicant would need to make sure that the application falls within particular subject matter (“green tech”).  The practical consequence of this was that as a general matter, US filers tended not to select ISA/JP.   But things changed on July 1, 2018 and now it is much easier for US filers. Continue reading “ISA/JP becomes easier for US filers to use”

Posted on

An opportunity to save a little money on search fees


On August 1, 2018 the search fee payable to the Russian international searching authority will drop. It is presently $691 and will drop to $638.

This offers an opportunity to save a little money for the applicant who is planning to use ISA/RU. If you have a client who is planning to file a PCT application using ISA/RU, and if you have the ability to postpone the filing until August 1, you can save $53.

Posted on

USPTO must really really scrap its Entrust login system

For years and years I have been listing the many reasons why USPTO should have scrapped its Entrust login system many years ago.

Now there is yet another reason that USPTO must do this.  The USPTO’s Entrust login system relies upon the use of Java from Oracle.  And Oracle has made this announcement:

Public updates for Oracle Java SE 8 released after January 2019 will not be available for business, commercial or production use without a commercial license.

I gather the license fee will be $2.50 per user per month.

I fear that USPTO’s way of dealing with this development will be to spend (applicants’) money buying a commercial license from Oracle to cover all users of the Entrust login system.

Posted on

Why would anyone convert a US provisional application to a non-provisional?

There is a procedure for converting a US provisional patent application into a non-provisional patent application.  The practitioner who follows this procedure (instead of simply filing a non-provisional with a domestic benefit claim) will put the client in the position of incurring an extra government fee and losing some patent term.

So why would anyone ever carry out this procedure?  There is a real-life situation where this might be the clever thing to do, as I learned the other day from a smart member of the EFS-Web listserv.

Continue reading “Why would anyone convert a US provisional application to a non-provisional?”

Posted on

Patent grace periods around the world

It’s a sort of sad discussion topic, but it comes up in the Internet discussion groups every few months.  Here’s an example:

Do any of you know of countries outside the US that have a “grace period” after a public disclosure of an invention for filing a patent application in the country directed to the invention?

Sad because one wishes that the would-be inventor had consulted competent counsel before permitting the public disclosure to occur.

So, what’s the answer?  Wouldn’t it be nice if, all in once place, somebody has compiled a list of countries with grace periods? Continue reading “Patent grace periods around the world”

Posted on

Getting a Super Patent

click to enlarge

Imagine you are counsel representing a patent owner in an infringement case.  Suppose you can say to the judge and jury:

Ladies and gentlemen, you have heard my learned opponent invite you to consider whether perhaps this patent should never have been granted because of prior art that was overlooked.  But you might be interested to know that during the time that this patent application was pending, prior art searching was carried out by not one, not two, not three, not four, but five patent offices.  The Examiners in these five patent offices were fluent in the Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese and Korean languages.  Before the claims were found to be patentable, these Examiners shared with each other the prior art that they found.  The Examiners from these five patent offices shared their thoughts as to whether the claims were patentable in view of the prior art that was found.  Only after all of these things took place did the patent office decide to grant a patent.  And this is the patent before you now.

I’d call such a patent a Super Patent.  Yes under US law any patent is to be presumed valid, but I suggest such a patent would enjoy a much greater presumption of validity.  Would you like to learn how to get such a Super Patent? Continue reading “Getting a Super Patent”