The Invent Blog®

New Federal Register Notice of note: Changes to Representation of Others Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (28 Feb 2007).

SUMMARY: In December 2003, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) proposed amendments to, inter alia, the rules governing disciplinary proceedings for attorneys and agents who practice before the Office, principally rules 11.2, 11.3, 11.5, and 11.14 through 11.62. One hundred fifty-seven written comments were received. After reviewing the written comments, the Office has decided to revise several of the rules as then proposed and request additional comments on those revised proposals. Other proposed rules contained in the earlier Notice of Proposed Rule making remain under consideration by the Office. This supplemental notice of proposed rule making sets forth revisions that the Office is proposing to the rules governing the conduct of investigations and disciplinary proceedings. Interested individuals are invited to comment on the proposed revisions in the rules.

Regarding whether a patent agent can prepare a license or assignment:

But for limited situations noted below, a registered patent agent is not authorized by his or her registration to practice before the Office to draw up a contract or to select contract forms for a client relating to a patent, such as an assignment or a license, if the state in which the agent resides or practices considers drafting contracts the practice of law. Assignments and licenses are the creation of state, not federal, statutory law.

[Via Hal Wegner]

Update: Russ Krajec ponders “This has a profound and negative effect on patent attorneys as well, as any assignment filed for an out of state client would also fall into this trap.” and Dennis Crouch opines on the ethics of representing out of state patent clients.

UPDATE (August 2008): http://inventblog.com/2008/08/patent-agents-cant-do-x.html

This is worth checking out…a very interesting visual explanation of U.S Copyright Law.

Copyright Navigator
A Digital Annotated Concept Map of the Fundamentals of U.S. Copyright Law
by Lionel S. Sobel
Professor, Southwestern University School of Law
Editor, Entertainment Law Reporter

A year ago, the Patent Office published (in the CFR) proposed rules entitled Changes To Practice for Continuing Applications, Requests for Continued Examination Practice, and Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims, which among other things pointed the finger of blame regarding patent pendency squarely upon “continuation abuse.”

Professor Crouch (sporting a new blog design) did some research and casts some serious doubts on whether pendency issues can be blamed on continuations.

It will be interesting to see where this all goes…

See also:

Patently-O: How long do I wait for a First Office Action

Promote the Progress: Justify Your Existence: PTO proposed changes to continuation and continued examination practice

Only 0.23% of all clients who paid money to InventHelp between 2003 and 2005 actually made more money than they paid…

Davison….a whooping 0.03% success rate…

Kurt Leyendecker on Inventhelp and Davison – the truth behind the polish

There’s a Wikipedia entry for everything…including invention promotion firms.

In a month (March 22-24) I’ll be speaking in Chicago at the American Bar Association’s TechShow on a couple of topics. First, speaking with Rick Klau on “Collaborating with Clients and Colleagues: Google Docs, Wikis, and Other Web Tools,” and second with Matt Homann on “Web 2.0: The Next Generation of Internet Tools.”

To me, 1.o was “pull” oriented. When you wanted information you would “pull” it in. When you had information to share, you’d sit around waiting for your clients/customers/fans to pull it from you. If they didn’t remember to “pull” (visit your static website), then your information wasn’t distributed. Regardless of the quality of your content, the wisdom you could impart, the passion you have…unless someone remembers to “pull” in the data…your goes no where.

I used to describe Web 2.0 as “push.” Content and information is now easily pushed to you. It is that aspect that is the genius of blogging. Whenever I have something new to say (post)…the information is automatically pushed to you (whether by RSS or by email).

Lately, it dawned on me that even that “push” concept is to simple. Web 2.0 isn’t about pushing information (vs. pulling), it is (as Matt and Doug have taught me) about each of us using push/pull technologies to collaborate together through the sharing of information. It is this…collaboration…which is the true backbone of Web 2.0.

Then…the other day I saw perhaps the best illustration yet as to what “2.0″ is. It is video by Michael Wesch, Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology, Kansas State University called “The Machine is Us/ing Us.”  [watch this video!]:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE

Collaboration. Sharing. Communicating.

Perhaps I need to rethink this blog. Now that I’ve switched to WordPress it is easier than ever to allow my readers to make posts. To share information with colleagues. To communicate. To collaborate. Any takers?

[BTW: If you haven't been to TechShow before...please do consider it. It is well worth the cost! You can Register Here.]

Want to follow Federal Circuit caselaw but don’t have time to read lengthy case summaries? FedCirc.us has an RSS/e-mail feed for you.

1. Case Review Summaries (provides summaries of the ten most recent case reviews)

RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/fedcircus_summaries

E-mail:Click for subscription form

2. Practice alerts (provides all FedCirc.us Practice Alerts)

RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/fedcircus_alerts

E-mail: Click for subscription form

This blog has moved to www.inventblog.com.  Please update your bookmarks.

I. DISCLAIMER

THE INVENT BLOG® is published by Registered Patent Attorney Stephen M. Nipper. The opinions expressed herein by him are his own and not his law firm’s.

THE INVENT BLOG® is NOT LEGAL ADVICE, nor should the information contained herein be construed as such.

Nothing on THE INVENT BLOG® should be perceived as creating an attorney-client relationship.

The comments on THE INVENT BLOG® were, are and will always be solely the opinions of the individuals leaving them. In no way does THE INVENT BLOG® or Stephen M. Nipper endorse, condone, agree with, sponsor, etc. these comments.

The full Comment Policy for THE INVENT BLOG® can be found here.

II. DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998 (DMCA) NOTICE AND DESIGNATION OF AGENT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT NOTIFICATION

Pursuant to the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (”DMCA”), the owner of this site has registered an Interim Designated Agent with the United States Copyright Office. This Interim Designated Agent is assigned to receive all notifications under the DMCA.

My Interim Designated Agent can be contacted as follows:
Stephen M. Nipper
1403 W. Franklin St.
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: 208-345-1122
Fax: 208-345-8370
E-mail: nipper at dykaslaw . com

POLICY ON INFRINGING ARTICLES OBTAINED THROUGH THIS BLOG
It is my policy to fully comply with the terms of the DMCA and to remove any article which I am notified infringes upon the copyrights of any party. I do not knowingly place any infringing items on this blog (server).
Furthermore, it is my policy to, at my discretion, deny commenting or other access to any subscriber to my services who knowingly infringes upon the copyrights of others.

NOTIFYING ME IF YOU FEEL MATERIAL AVAILABLE FROM THIS BLOG VIOLATES YOUR COPYRIGHTS
I refer you to the full text of the DMCA for a complete description of your rights and obligations concerning materials on this blog that you feel violate your copyrights. It is my policy to fully comply with the DMCA.
You may notify me of materials that you feel are infringing by notifying the Designated Agent at the contact information indicated above. Your notification should comply with the requirements of the DMCA. At a minimum, the notice should include:
1. an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright interest;
2. a description of the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed, including the URL (i.e., web page address) of the location where the copyrighted work exists or a copy of the copyrighted work;
3. identification of the URL or other specific location where the material that you claim is infringing is located and a description of the precise information contained on that site that you feel infringes upon your rights;
4. information that permits me to contact you, including your address, telephone number, and email address;
5. a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;
6. a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your Notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner’s behalf.

HOW I PROCESS NOTICES I RECEIVE
It is my policy to follow the terms of the DMCA. Upon receipt of a notice that “substantially complies” with the contents that are proscribed by the DMCA, I will take action to remove or disable the material that is claimed to be infringing.
I will contemporaneously notify the party responsible for such material that I have received your notification. This notification will include a statement that this party has the right to give a counter notification which complies with the requirements of the DMCA.

If I receive a counter notification from the party responsible for the allegedly infringing content, I will notify you that I shall replace the removed or disabled material in 10 business days unless you notify us that you have commenced court action against the allegedly infringing party within that 10 day period.

If you file court action, the allegedly infringing materials will remain disabled until an order of the court determines the matter.

YOUR FURTHER RIGHTS
For a complete description of the rights that you have under the DMCA and the procedure that I will follow, I refer you to the full text of the DMCA. Nothing in these policies is intended to supplant the requirements and procedures contained in the DMCA. If there is conflict between these policies and the terms of the DMCA, the terms and requirements of the DMCA shall control.

Copyright Office Home Page http://www.loc.gov/copyright/index.html
Summary of Digital Millennium Act From the Copyright Office: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf