Posts

Posted on

A reminder to re-register your DMCA take-down agent or lose protection

It will be recalled that to secure safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it is necessary for the operator of a web site to designate a “take-down agent” by means of a registration filed with the Copyright Office.  For the past eighteen years, the Copyright Office had provided only a cumbersome and expensive method of paper filing for this registration process.

Alert copyright listserv member Sophilia Wu recently posted a very helpful reminder that the Copyright Office has now released an e-filing system for such designations.  She quotes the Copyright Office:

Transition period: Any service provider that has designated an agent with the Office prior to December 1, 2016, in order to maintain an active designation with the Office, must submit a new designation electronically using the online registration system by December 31, 2017. Any designation not made through the online registration system will expire and become invalid after December 31, 2017. Until then, the Copyright Office will maintain two directories of designated agents: the directory consisting of paper designations made pursuant to the Office’s prior interim regulations which were in effect between November 3, 1998 and November 30, 2016 (the “old directory”), and the directory consisting of designations made electronically through the online registration system (the “new directory”). During the transition period, a compliant designation in either the old directory or the new directory will satisfy the service provider’s obligation under section 512(c)(2) to designate an agent with the Copyright Office. During the transition period, to search for a service provider’s most up-to-date designation, begin by using the new directory. The old directory should only be consulted if a service provider has not yet designated an agent in the new directory.

Alert listserv member has blogged about this new registration system in a very helpful article entitled All About the Copyright Office’s New DMCA System.  As he points out, the new system is less expensive and less cumbersome to use as compared with the old system.

Thanks as always to Sophilia and Doug for posting.  (If you have not already done so, you should probably join the Copyright listserv.)

Posted on

Who was quickest to report the Supreme Court design patent decision?

Old-timers like me will recall the old days when, to keep up to date about important developments like court decisions, the only choice was to subscribe to BNA’s PTCJ (Patent Trademark and Copyright Journal), a weekly print publication that at that time cost about $1000 per year.  The average delay between an important event and a subscriber’s learning of the event was on the order of 7-10 days.

Nowadays of course we get our news via the Internet.  But it is interesting to see the great variation in how long it takes for news of an important event to get around depending upon the particular distribution channel.

I’ll take as an example yesterday’s important Supreme Court decision in Samsung v. Apple.  This is the first time in decades that the Supreme Court has taken up a design patent case, and the outcome is an important one for the world of design patents.  (I blogged about the decision yesterday.)

The first place that this event got reported was the mailing list of the AIPLA Industrial Designs committee, at 9:34 AM Mountain Time.  The poster was James Aquilina, vice-chair of that committee, and the result was that all of the members of that AIPLA committee learned of this development within minutes of the Supreme Court’s release of the decision.

The second place that this event got reported was the Industrial Designs listserv, at 10:46 AM Mountain Time.  The poster was alert listserv member Margaret Polson, and the result was all of the members of that listserv learned of this development.  (If you have not already done so, you should join the Industrial Designs listserv, which is free of charge.)

The third place that this event got reported was the Patentpractice listserv (sponsored by Washburn University School of Law), at 11:11 AM Mountain Time.  The poster was alert listserv member Rick Neifeld, and the result was that all of the members of that listserv learned of this development.

James, Margaret and Rick were each filing US design patent applications for clients long before it was fashionable to do so.  They scooped every mainstream publication including the New York Times and USA Today (mentioned below).

The fourth place that this event got reported was the email newsletter of the firm of McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP (“MBHB Snippets“).  This was at 1:56 PM Mountain Time.

The fifth place that this got reported was the Ant-Like Persistence blog, in its industrial designs section, at 4:29 PM Mountain TIme.   (If you’ve not already subscribed to that blog, now is the time to do so.)

The sixth place that this got reported was the email newsletter of the firm of Maier & Maier PLLC.  This was at 4:53 PM Mountain Time.

By that point the news had reached the mainstream media, with articles in the New York Times, USA Today and elsewhere.

Posted on

US Supreme Court decides a design patent case

It’s not so very often that the US Supreme Court gets an opportunity to decide a case about a US design patent.  Some months ago the Court granted certiorari as to one of the sub-issues in the smartphone litigation by Apple against Samsung.  Today the Court decided this sub-issue.  The decision, which I discuss below, comes nowhere near to bringing an end to that litigation.  Perhaps more importantly for the world of design patents, the decision has ramifications for design patent law generally.

Continue reading “US Supreme Court decides a design patent case”

Posted on

Searching Authority fee changes effective January 1, 2017

The fees payable in US dollars for the services of various International Searching Authorities will change on January 1, 2017.  The following table lists the ISAs that are available to applicants filing in RO/US, ranked in descending order of cost for the first invention.

before January 1, 2017 US$ effective January 1, 2017 US$ second through nth inventions approximate US$
ISA/EP 2097 2103 € 1875 1985
ISA/US (large entity) 2080 2080 US$ 2080 2080
ISA/AU 1674 1688 AU$ 2200 1637
ISA/SG 1578 1641 SG$ 2240 1567
ISA/JP 1530 1536 ¥ 126000 1115
ISA/KR 1120 1177 ₩ 225000 191
ISA/US (small entity) 1040 1040 US$ 1040 1040
ISA/IL 912 938 ₪ 3529 911
ISA/US (micro entity) 520 520 US$ 520 520
ISA/RU 420 449 руб 28000 433

Continue reading “Searching Authority fee changes effective January 1, 2017”

Posted on

ISA/US work product gets you on the Highway in the USPTO?

pct-pph-video
Carl Oppedahl in this 2011 Youtube video

This email came in today from someone (let’s call him “PY”) asking about PCT-PPH:

I watched your 2011 Youtube video on this subject and found it very useful. Thank you for sharing your expertise.
I have a question: If the favorable written opinion is from the USPTO in the PCT international phase, can you still use the PCT-PPH in a patent application pending in the USPTO?

PY’s question is actually a very smart question.  First I will explain why this is a very smart question, and then I will offer a practical answer to the question.
Continue reading “ISA/US work product gets you on the Highway in the USPTO?”

Posted on

Delay of 36 days at USPTO’s Assignment Branch

Readers will recall my previous post about big delays in the Assignment Branch at the USPTO.  As I reported in that post, we had e-filed an Assignment for recordation on October 10, 2016 and even after some weeks the Assignment Branch had not gotten around to giving us the all-important reel and frame number.  We had placed a followup call on October 27 reaching a nice fellow who told us that there was a backlog.  We placed another followup call on November 7 reaching a nice woman who said yes there was still a backlog.  On that day I posted the above-mentioned blog article and one reader posted a comment that she was able to top me.  She had e-filed an Assignment on October 6 that had not been recorded as of November 7.  Another reader posted a comment that he was able to top both of us, with an Assignment that he had e-filed on September 15 and that the Assignment Branch had not recorded as of November 7.

Anyway now there is news.  Today, November 15, USPTO has mailed a Notice of Recordation for this Assignment that we e-filed on October 10.  It took the Assignment Branch 36 days to get around to recording this Assignment.

Posted on

WIPO’s PCT distance learning course

wipo-logoWIPO offers a distance learning course called Introduction to the Patent Cooperation Treaty.  The course is free of charge.  My suggestion is that any person who is involved in providing services to clients relating to the PCT ought to take this course, pass the quizzes, and obtain the certificate of completion.  My suggestion extends to patent practitioners, paralegals, and administrative assistants.  I took the course just today and here is my certificate of completion.

To learn more or to register for the course, click here.  You can see more information about the course below. Continue reading “WIPO’s PCT distance learning course”

Posted on

Trademark files from the days before computers

Today we received an interesting letter from the post-registration branch at the USPTO.  The letter says that the Section 15 papers that we filed a couple of months ago (to make a registration “incontestable“) are being bounced.  The Section 15 fee that we paid will be refunded, the letter explains.  The letter explains that the Section 15 papers that we filed “remain in the record”.  The Section 15 papers “will not be returned to you and will not be processed or reviewed.”  Can you guess why this happened?

Continue reading “Trademark files from the days before computers”