Bluesky: @oppedahl.com
It is recalled (see blog post of July 20, 2018) that some time ago it was planned that the ISA/RU search fee would decrease. The fee change has now taken place. For US filers, the search fee for the Russian international searching authority decreases today from $691 to $638.
In a previous blog article, I talked about the USPTO’s practice of not reporting pendency numbers bigger than 30. Said differently, if a particular art unit has a backlog that extends further than 30 months into the future, the USPTO will not reveal the actual backlog but will instead report the number 30. In the world of d’Arsonval meter movements, this would be like a meter that is “pegged” at 30.
There are 514 art units at the USPTO. Right now in July of 2018, how many of those art units are “pegged”? Which art units are “pegged”?
In the next blog article I will list some of the 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”
The 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”
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.
The search fee paid in US dollars by US filers for a PCT search carried out by the EPO will drop on September 1, 2018.
Presently $2207, it will drop to $2095.
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.
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?”
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”
I am delighted to see that fellow bloggers at the MBHB firm have blogged about the upcoming pharma/biotech webinar that we are sponsoring free of charge next week. Continue reading “A tip of the hat to the Patent Docs blog”