Posts Tagged ‘patent office’

Share via email

Dan Pierron

In the ever-changing world of the USPTO to comply with changes in the AIA, satellite offices are being established remote from the Alexandria headquarters.  A first branch was opened July 13 in Detroit, with others to follow in Denver, Dallas, and Silicon Valley.  The stated purposes are included in the enacting law, and are worth going through with a critical eye.

The first purpose is to “increase outreach activities to better connect patent filers and innovators with the Office.”  The way this seems most likely to happen is with an increase in interviews, more specifically video interviews, as is indicated will be possible in the Detroit office, and hopefully will also be the case for each of the other satellite offices.  Aside from that, unless the Patent Office opens up the satellite offices to in-person interviews, I cannot see how outreach will increase by that much.  Mixers with examiners probably wouldn’t be social events of the season.  Levity aside, reaching out to individual inventors through outreach programs at the satellite offices could be a real boon to garage-inventor types, encouraging them to start pursuing patent protection for inventions where they otherwise might not be aware or be somewhat disillusioned or discouraged from doing so.

Satellite Office – the new recruiting pools for local law firms?

The second stated purpose is to “enhance patent examiner retention.”  This might be the most worthwhile of the goals of the satellite offices.  Unfortunately, it might also be the most difficult to achieve.  Ostensibly, it seems like the thinking is if an examiner  lives near a satellite office, their satisfaction with the job will increase, hence increasing retention.  However, I can easily imagine the scenario where now, an examiner can put in his time as an examiner in the technology hub of his choice, selected from any of the satellite office locations, all the meanwhile starting his search for his next position as a patent agent or attorney, depending on his education  background.  Time will tell which scenario plays out.

The third stated purpose is to “improve recruitment of patent examiners.”  I’m not too sure how this one will play out.  Will representatives from the patent office tour nearby engineering and life sciences programs at local universities, trolling for recruits?  Perhaps it will be the aforementioned mixers that generates interest in employment at the satellite offices.

The fourth stated purpose is to “decrease the number of patent applications waiting for examination.”  There are of course two obvious ways to reduce the backlog of applications: increase the examining core, and reduce the average pendency for applications.  In announcing the opening of the Detroit office, the USPTO said 120 highly-skilled positions would be created.  I don’t know how many examiners will be included in that number, but there is a good chance a significant portion of those positions will be examiners.

The fifth and final purpose is to “improve the quality of patent examination.”  This seems to be a derivative benefit of the enhancing retention and improving recruitment of examiners.  If in fact examiners are successfully recruited and retained as a result of the satellite offices, it stands to reason the quality of examination would go up.  We’ve seen a mix of problems and solutions to attacking the backlog dilemma, with varying degree of success.  However, there seems to be agreement that the satellite offices will be a net benefit to the system, with many of the questions discussed above remaining open.  One thing is certain; with the increasing rate of applications being submitted, bold action must be taken to tackle the backlog of applications, before it becomes as unwieldy as some other government figures.

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

Someone brought to my attention a very well put together video on some of the nuances of the America Invents Act.  Essentially, the video discusses the first to file requirement and shows us that it is now truly a race to the patent office.  We can pick the video apart all day long, but take it for the joke that it is, and not as an indication that anything and everything under the sun is actually patentable.  By the way, I especially like the cameo appearance by USPTO Director David Kappos.  I thought he did a great job in his acting debut.

 

 

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

In my morning slew of emails that I receive regarding intellectual property updates, I noticed that Dennis Crouch, author of Patently-O posted an article that he projects that the USPTO will issue more than 250,000 patents in 2012.  My initial reaction was “Holy Crap,” but that made me immediately go check the backlog.

You may recall that the USPTO has provided the patent dashboard to the public which gives us a great view of the status of the patent backlog.  According to the patent dashboard, we are now down to a patent application backlog of 627,367 patent applications.  That is down significantly from the 900,000+ patent applications that I remember being pending with Director Kappos took over.  Say what you will about the management of the patent office, but I look at the patent backlog as having been the single biggest issue with the USPTO and, somehow, Director Kappos and his team have found a way to put a significant dent in it.

Undoubtedly, there have been a number of changes over the past few years under his leadership.  For the most part, I believe they have been good ones.  The questions remains, however, as to whether or not the Patent Office is equipped to handle the many changes coming down the pike with the America Invents Act.  A great article about one of the biggest issues facing the USPTO, i.e., the underfunding of the USPTO, can be found here.  Although the America Invents Act moves funding of the USPTO a step in the right direction, it is not all the way there yet.

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

I was reading through my daily update this morning from Patently-O and noticed a bulletin that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has changed it’s name to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  Dennis Crouch indicated that this information was obtained from this alert.

This is just one of the many change that is coming from the America Invents Act (AIA).  The change is not due to a desire to have a different name.  Not by a long shot.  This is a product of the First to File system that is coming into place.  Interferences were a tool that currently can be used by inventors when two different entities invented the same thing at around the same time.  In short, when two applications were pending that were directed to the same invention, one party can request that an “interference” be declared.  After an interference is declared, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) would determine who was the “first to invent.”

Well, the AIA does away with “first to invent” and moves the United States to a “first to file” system.  In that case, we don’t need interferences any more.  The protection goes to the inventor that filed their application first.  Yes, yes, I am very much so simplifying this, but I just wanted to let you know that this is more than just a desire to change names.  The PTAB will still be carrying out many of the other functions that the BPAI carried out, i.e., appeals of Examiner’s decisions, appeals of reexaminations, inter partes review, post grant review, etc.

Many of these changes are set to take effect on September 16, 2012.  Here at the firm, the patent department is gearing up for the changes. I will be posting more on what inventors need to be on the lookout for as many of the provisions of AIA are implemented.

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

This is an issue that has driven me nuts for years. One of my clients will call and ask me if they need to pay an invoice that they received from the Trademark Office. Confused, as to why the Trademark Office would have sent them an invoice, I ask the client to forward it to me. I usually receive an e-mail shortly after the phone call attaching the alleged invoice.

Surprisingly, the invoice includes a seal that resembles that of the Trademark Office, and indicates that the trademark owner owes $400 (or some similar amount) for a trademark monitoring service. It does not purport to be a company that is providing an optional service. Instead, it appears to be a fee from a governmental agency. My general advice to my clients upon reviewing these types of documents is that “if you don’t receive for me, it is a scam.”

I wondered how long it would take for the Trademark Office to do something about this. Just last week, I received a trademark registration for my clients, and enclosed was the warning that is pictured on the right.  Please click on it to enlarge it so that you can read it.  Clicking once will take you to another page that displays a bit of a larger image, and please click on that image to get to an even more readable version. The warning tells the trademark owner to be aware that private companies not associated with the United States Patent and Trademark Office use trademark application and registration information that is publicly available to solicit various services. It also puts the trademark owner on notice that these private companies use names similar to the USPTO, or other governmental agencies, when soliciting these services.

I am glad that the Trademark Office is taking this proactive step to warn trademark owners. My only question is whether or not something can be done to stop these scam artists. Has anyone ever checked to see if they actually provide the services that they collect money for? I highly doubt they do. Please comment below if you have run into similar situations.  I am curious to know if anyone has any knowledge on whether or not these companies actually provide the services that they purport to provide.


Subscribe

Login



WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 13248 access attempts in the last 7 days.