It will be recalled (see my blog article of December 14, 2017) that most USPTO patent fees will increase, some substantially, on Tuesday, January 16, 2018. This presents an opportunity to save money. If there is some fee that you were considering paying on or after January 16, maybe you should pay it earlier, for example on Monday, January 15.
People claim copyright in white noise created by others?
I am astonished to read this news article. It seems a fellow named Sebastian Tomczak used Audacity (a sound editing program that I use all the time, and that I recommend to everyone), which has a white noise generator, to create ten hours of white noise. Then he made it into a Youtube video. And then what happened?
Continue reading “People claim copyright in white noise created by others?”
Why have you not registered for this CLE webinar?
Tuesday, January 9 there will be a webinar about sequence listings. The webinar is free of charge. This webinar will be presented by two experienced practitioners, Suzannah K. Sundby and Carl Oppedahl.
As of right now, the number of people who have signed up for this webinar is less than the number of people in the world. This might mean that you have not signed up for this webinar. Which then raises the question:
Why have you not signed up for this webinar?
For more information, or to register for this free webinar about sequence listings, click here.
If you know someone who might want to attend this free webinar about sequence listings, you will probably be doing them a favor if you pass this information on to them.
Webinar on sequence listings and patent applications
If your patent application contains nucleotide or amino acid sequences, to comply with US and PCT rules you need to provide the sequences to the patent office as computer-readable sequence listings. This webinar, which is CLE accredited and is free of charge, explains how to prepare and e-file such sequence listings.
Abstract is required to “commence on a separate sheet”? No!
From time to time an Examiner in the USPTO recites this objection:
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR §§ 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
An Examiner made such an objection a couple of days ago in one of our cases. We will be able to force the Examiner to withdraw the objection. Continue reading “Abstract is required to “commence on a separate sheet”? No!”
USPTO favors a particular company
The USPTO did a bad thing the other day. It told its customers, falsely, that the only way to do time-based one-time passwords is to use Oracle’s app. USPTO says “you must have the Oracle Mobile Authenticator app on your mobile device” to do one-time passwords. This is flatly false and it wrongly favors a particular company. Hopefully the USPTO will remedy its mistake immediately. I’ll explain this. Continue reading “USPTO favors a particular company”
Is someone tampering with your US trademark registrations?
One of the smartest trademark practitioners in the US is Erik Pelton. Erik regularly shares his knowledge and experience on the E-Trademarks listserv and on his blog. He is a long-standing sponsor of Meet the Bloggers. Here is something that he posted on the listserv the other day:
I recently came across a peculiar situation for the first time: a person not affiliated with Applicant filed a correspondence change with the USPTO via TEAS. The only change was to add an additional email address to the record. They did this just before the registration issued.
My guess is that they were trying to game the Amazon Brand Registry system, which I believe automatically generates a link sent to the trademark registration email address(es) of record when creating a new account.
I filed via TEAS to change the correspondence to remove the email; and then the same email address was used to do it a second time. To add to the issue, the email address used is from a secure private email domain (tutanota.com).
My client and I have reached out the USPTO (who has responded quickly, I am pleased to share!) and to Amazon to warn them about this. I suspect it has happened to others who may not be aware.
If anyone has any additional information or experience about this issue, please share.
I had never heard of this until Erik posted this to the listserv. Prompted by Erik’s posting I surfed around a bit to try to learn what might be going on. I actually signed up for the Amazon Brand Registry and I can confirm that the trademark hijacking risk that Erik described does exist. Here is what I learned. Continue reading “Is someone tampering with your US trademark registrations?”
Most USPTO patent fees will increase January 16
Most USPTO patent fees will increase, some rather substantially, on January 16, 2018. You can see the Federal Register notice here. Here are some examples of fee increases that will take effect on that day: Continue reading “Most USPTO patent fees will increase January 16”
A new Best Practice – reporting docx
A year ago or so, the USPTO started a beta-test of its system in which docx files play an important role. In the best-test system, an applicant was permitted to file a patent application in docx format rather than PDF format. Likewise, the applicant had the opportunity to receive some documents from the USPTO in docx format in addition to PDF format. Our firm was among the beta-testers of this docx system.
Now, as of September 10, 2017, these features have been made available to all USPTO customers (not merely the beta-test users). This offers a new Best Practice for reporting to clients.
Russia joins Hague Agreement!
Russia has joined the Hague Agreement.
On November 30, 2017, the Government of the Russian Federation deposited its instrument of ratification of the Hague Agreement with WIPO’s Director General Francis Gurry. The Hague Agreement will thus enter into force in the Russian Federation on February 28, 2018.