The other day we had soldering cl
ass at Oppedahl Patent Law Firm LLC. Everybody at the firm received a nice soldering station and soldering tools and a toolbox to keep everything in. We assembled several do-it-yourself kits that required soldering. Some of our people already knew how to solder and got through the kits pretty quickly, and others got to learn how to solder for the first time. Continue reading “Building a guitar compressor pedal”
A curate’s egg
Curate: “Oh, no, my Lord, I assure you that parts of it are excellent!”
I’ve been teaching patent law as an adjunct professor at University of Denver law school for some twenty years, and every one of my students over the years has heard my recommendation that they subscribe to The Economist. I think The Economist offers a very helpful non-American perspective on events of the day.
Today, reading The Economist, I learned the term a “curate’s egg”. As Wikipedia explains, a curate’s egg is something that is mostly or partly bad, but partly good. The term has its origin in a cartoon published in 1895 in the British humor magazine Punch. Drawn by George du Maurier, it pictures a timid-looking curate eating breakfast in his bishop’s house. The bishop says:
I’m afraid you’ve got a bad egg, Mr Jones.
The curate, desperate not to offend his eminent host and ultimate employer, replies:
Oh no, my Lord, I assure you that parts of it are excellent!
A Google search for the term “curate’s egg” yields over a hundred thousand hits.
Patent firms that might get left out of the utility patent tote board
Here are some firms that were ranked in last year’s Utility Patent Tote Board, but which have not yet responded for this year’s Utility Patent Tote Board.
If you know somebody at one of these firms, you might want to pass this along to them. The response date has been extended from January 20, 2017 to January 23, 2017. To respond, click here.
| Andrus Intellectual Property Law, LLP |
| Antoinette M. Tease, P.L.L.C. |
| Armstrong Teasdale |
| Baker Botts |
| Banner & Witcoff |
| Blakely Sokoloff |
| Brinks Gilson |
| Brownstein Hyatt |
| Bryan Cave |
| Buchanan Ingersoll |
| Christie Parker |
| Cochran Freund |
| Conley Rose |
| Crossley Patent Law |
| Dorsey & Whitney |
| Drinker Biddle |
| Duft Bornsen |
| Faegre Baker Daniels |
| Fenwick & West |
| Finnegan Henderson |
| Fish & Richardson |
| Fitzpatrick Cella |
| Foley & Lardner |
| Greenberg Traurig |
| Hamilton DeSanctis |
| Hartman Patents PLLC |
| Hauptman Ham, LLP |
| Head, Johnson & Kachigian, PC |
| HIPLegal LLP |
| Hoffman Warnick LLC |
| Hogan Lovells |
| Holland & Hart |
| HolzerIPLaw |
| IP&L Solutions |
| Juneau & Mitchell |
| K&L Gates |
| Kain Spielman |
| Katten Muchin Rosenman |
| Kenyon & Kenyon |
| Kilpatrick Townsend |
| Klaas Law O’Meara |
| Knobbe Martens |
| Ladas & Parry |
| Larson & Anderson |
| Lathrop & Gage |
| Law Office of Robert Rose |
| Leason Ellis |
| Lemaire Patent Law Firm |
| Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. |
| Macheledt Bales LLP |
| Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP |
| McDermott Will |
| Merchant & Gould |
| Morgan Lewis |
| Morrison & Foerster |
| Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. |
| Neugeboren O’Dowd PC |
| Nixon Peabody |
| Nixon Vanderhye |
| Norred Law, PLLC |
| Novak Druce |
| Oblon McClelland |
| Ollila Law Group |
| Patentfile, LLC |
| Patterson Thuente |
| Patwrite Law |
| Pepper Hamilton |
| Perkins Coie |
| Pillsbury Winthrop |
| Polsinelli PC |
| Polson Intellectual Property Law |
| Pritzkau Patent Group, LLP |
| Pryor Cashman |
| RatnerPrestia |
| Reed Smith |
| Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office |
| Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP |
| Santangelo Law Offices |
| Schwegman Lundberg |
| Scully Scott |
| Setter Roche |
| Sheridan Ross |
| Stass & Halsey |
| Steptoe & Johnson |
| Sterne Kessler |
| Sughrue Mion |
| Swanson & Bratschun |
| Vedder Price |
| Wenderoth |
| Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian, LLP |
| Winston & Strawn LLP |
| Wolf Greenfield |
| Workman Nydegger |
First of the 2016 Tote Boards posted
The 2016 Design Patent Toteboard has been posted.
The response periods for the 2016 Utility Patent and 2016 Trademark toteboards is being extended from January 20 to January 23.
Several well-known firms that do trademark prosecution have not yet responded. If you know someone at one of these firms, you might want to pass along a reminder to them. These include:
- K&L Gates
- Leydig Voit
- Banner & Witcoff
- Head, Johnson & Kachigian
- Antionette M Tease PLLC
- Andrus Intellectual Property Law
- Lee & Hayes PLLC
- Chernoff Vilhauer LLP
- Dorsey & Whitney
- Alston & Bird LLP
- Arent Fox LLP
- Baker Botts L.L.P.
- Fross Zelnick
Tomorrow will be a federal holiday
In the EFS-Web listserv, alert listserv member Michele Cimbala points out that tomorrow will be a federal holiday in the District of Columbia for purposes of filings at the USPTO.
You can see this on the USPTO web site.
Anything that was due to be filed tomorrow, January 20, 2017 will be timely if filed the following Monday, January 23, 2017.
USPTO tackling the “balaclava problem” (part 2)
In the previous blog article I described the “balaclava problem” and gave an example of a real-life trademark application presenting this problem. In that blog article I described one of the two ways that the USPTO is trying to attack the “balaclava problem”. In this blog article I describe a second way that the USPTO is trying to attack this problem.
Continue reading “USPTO tackling the “balaclava problem” (part 2)”
USPTO tackling the “balaclava problem” (part 1)
Trademark filers are familiar with the “balaclava problem”. When I say the “balaclava problem” I mean the many US trademark registrations in which the listing of identified goods or services in a particular trademark class is a listing of all possible goods or services in that class. The USPTO has launched two recent initiatives which are intended to try to fight the “balaclava problem”. This blog article discusses one of the initiatives and the next blog article discusses the second of the initiatives.
Let’s first give a real-life illustration of the “balaclava problem”. As an example consider the 721 items of goods in class 25 (clothing) for this application, which is presently pending before the USPTO: Continue reading “USPTO tackling the “balaclava problem” (part 1)”
Some PCT search fees to drop on March 1, 2017
What goes up must come down, it seems.
| USD search fee as of December 31, 2016 | As of January 1, 2017 | % increase | March 1, 2017 | % decrease | |
| ISA/EP | $2097 | $2103 | 0.3% | $1992 | 5.3% |
| ISA/KR | $1120 | $1177 | 5.1% | $1114 | 5.4% |
| ISA/JP | $1530 | $1536 | 0.4% | $1372 | 10.7% |
Continue reading “Some PCT search fees to drop on March 1, 2017”
USPTO addresses asymmetry in the correction of check-the-box mistakes
Ever since March 16, 2013 there has been a profound asymmetry in the manner in which check-the-box mistakes could be corrected by the practitioner. For more than three years now, it has been easy (according to USPTO’s rules) to correct a mistake if it happens in one direction, and impossible to correct the mistake if it happens in the opposite direction. USPTO has now announced a policy that is intended to reduce this profound asymmetry. Continue reading “USPTO addresses asymmetry in the correction of check-the-box mistakes”
First results from USPTO’s Trademark Application Docket system
I’ve received my first status monitoring results from USPTO’s new TAD (Trademark Application Docket) system. The system worked, so far as I can tell. I’ll describe how it went. Continue reading “First results from USPTO’s Trademark Application Docket system”