USPTO Notice Regarding the Scope of Foreign Filing Licenses

July 24, 2008 on 7:24 am | In Legislation/Regulation, Patent Searching, USPTO | No Comments

Applicants and registered patent practitioners are reminded that the export of subject matter abroad pursuant to a license from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), such as a foreign filing license, is limited to purposes related to the filing of foreign patent applications. Applicants who are considering exporting subject matter abroad for the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States should contact the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) at the Department of Commerce for the appropriate clearances.

See: USPTO Notice on “Scope of Foreign Filing Licenses, Notice” (dated 23Jul2008).

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

Remember when the practice of patent law was “fun”?

June 12, 2008 on 12:01 pm | In Legislation/Regulation, The-Practice-of-Law, USPTO | 3 Comments

It isn’t anymore…hasn’t been for a few years. My fellow practitioners know exactly what I mean.

Then, I read this:

…The SPE indicated that it was the policy in his Art Group not to issue
any patents any more. In fact, some examiners in this unidentified Art
Group have not issued a single patent in over 2 years!

PLI Patent Practice Center Blog on “Quality Review Shutting Down the USPTO.”

Wonderful.

As Gene says in that post:

If you have
come across any suspicious activity that might suggest there are
examiners, supervisors or Art Groups that are refusing to issue any
patents please let me know. If you have seen a ridiculous rejection
let me know. I am happy to keep all sources confidential.

Apparently, quite a few people have sent Gene emails about that post (see “More Quality Review Madness“). If you’ve seen something odd…you might want to contact Gene too.

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

Updated links to USPTO & FTC publications on invention promotion companies

December 26, 2007 on 11:27 am | In Independent Inventors, Lawsuits, Legislation/Regulation, Patent Searching, USPTO | Comments Off

Contact the USPTO Before You Get Burned (PDF) [Original] [Local copy]
upstoscamprevent.jpg

FTC Consumer Alert: Spotting Sweet-Sounding Promises of Fraudulent Invention Promotion Firms (PDF) [Original] [Local Copy]
ftc-spotting.jpg

FTC Facts for Consumers: Invention Promotion Firms (PDF) [Original] [Local Copy]
ftc-facts.jpg

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

Free CLE, ethics, electronic discovery

December 3, 2007 on 7:21 pm | In Legislation/Regulation, The-Practice-of-Law | Comments Off

“Through December 12, 2007, PLI is giving away a free ethics course online that will count for CLE credit. The course is Ethics and Electronic Discovery 2007, which was recorded in August 2007.”  See:  PLI - Patent Blog–Ethics and Electronic Discovery 2007.

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

Injunction Issues! USPTO Rule Changes Put On Hold

October 31, 2007 on 9:46 am | In Legislation/Regulation, USPTO | Comments Off

Christmas in October!  PLI Patent Blog reporting “Glaxo Wins!  Injunction Issues!” and that the USPTO continuation/claims rule changes (some of which would have kicked in tomorrow) have been put on hold.

Makes you wonder how many RCEs were filed in the past few days needlessly (wasting fees and adding to backlog).

[update: Via a post on Oklahoma patent blog PHOSITA, a copy of the court's order ]

Now apply that “faulty search” thought to the new rules’ Examination Support Document. Question: If you file an ESD, along with all of the requirements, disclosures and statements (some of which may come back to bite you in litigation), but your search missed a class (or subclass) the USPTO felt contains relevant prior art…does that mean that your ESD is rejected and you’re forced to pick 5/25 (even though you now have the exposure of filing the ESD)? Will you be provided an opportunity to redo your search?

I’m not sure that I’ve seen the answer to those questions anywhere. Perhaps they are in the “Examination Support Document Guidelines” that are coming in “October 2007.” If I missed the answer somewhere, please let me know and I’ll update this post.

UPDATE: A commentor (below) raises some additional issues (worth reading) and points out that the answer to my question actually is in the rules (I just missed it), namely Rule 1.265(e) that says:

(e) If an examination support document is required, but the examination support document or preexamination search is deemed to be insufficient, or the claims have been amended such that the examination support document no longer covers each of the claims, applicant will be notified and given a two-month time period that is not extendable under § 1.136(a) within which, to avoid abandonment of the application, the applicant must:
(1) File a corrected or supplemental examination support document in compliance with this section that covers each of the claims (whether in independent or dependent form); or
(2) Amend the application such that it contains no more than five independent claims and no more than twenty-five total claims.

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:


Next Page »

Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^