| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Patent filings in China continue to rise, as reported in a recent article in the Financial Times (7/3, Waldmeir). Enforcement of patent rights still remains an issue. However, with the rise in filings, coupled with a few pending court cases, momentum may be beginning to swing in the direction of the patentee. It appears the next few years will be critical in the evolution of IP in China.
Registration is now open for the 13th annual Independent Inventors Conference. The conference will be held at the USPTO in Alexandria, Virginia August 8-9.
Additionally, a pre-conference workshop will be offered the evening of August 7 for anyone interested in learning about the basics of patents and the importance of intellectual property protection.
For additional information, click here.
To register, click here.
The number of patents issued in the U.S. in 2007 dropped from the previous year according to a recent article in the Chicago Tribune. There has been a downward trend in recent years. According to the article, only 51 percent of applications were allowed in 2007, which is down from 72 percent in 2000.
Patent Applications Pending Prior to Allowance
For the past few years, it has certainly seemed more difficult to obtain a patent. Even the not so solidly based rejections have required appeal, Examiner interviews, or RCE's at an alarming rate. Interestingly, there is proof of this trend, and now, some discussion as well. Check out these links [1] [2] [3].
Jake Ward has a review of Google's patent search tool available at AnticipateThis.com. It is worth checking out. According to the comments, one of the nice features is that full text searches can be conducted prior to 1976, something that other services do not provide.
Here is a listing of patents from the Toledo Blade which were issued in the Toledo area in October 2006.
One of the most asked questions a patent attorney hears is "How much is my patent worth?". The easy answer is "Whatever you can get for it". However, in reality, there really is no easy answer. The value can be approximated using sales forcasts and the like, but many variables can make or break such an approximation. These variables can include costs of production, market swings, etc.
To assist (at least a little) in gaining some confidence and credibility in assigning a value, a number of links are provided below to articles, book titles, and other rersources. Although no single resource will help assign a value to a patent, the real "value" of the resources will be promoting a better understanding.
Valuing Innovation, Invention, and Patents
Determine a Patent's Estimated Value
Appraising Inventions: The Key to Technology Management
We are often asked to provide a form for inventors to disclose an invention. Below is a sample basic form.
Taking advantage of the rocket dockets in the Eastern District of Texas, IBM has sued Amazon for patent infringement. IBM has described the patents at issue as core to electronic commerce.
IBM plans to make patent filing information available to the public online in an effort to minimize patent disputes. For more, go here.
Where is the best place to file a lawsuit for patent infringement? If you are looking for a quick resolution and a favorable jury, Marshall, Texas might be the place according to this recent article in the New York Times. An astonishing 234 patent lawsuits are expected to be filed in the Federal District Court in Marshall. The key statistics to know? Patent holders win 78% of the time. Much higher than the average of 59% elsewhere. Additionally, the cases are heard faster in Marshall than in other courts. Rumor has it that they even have good food in Marshall! Not a bad business for the small Texas town, and a good thing to know if you are a patent litigator.
The Invent Blog has a post including some very good advice on what to do if you feel you have been taken advantage of by an entity promising to help you promote your invention, obtain a patent, etc. As we have posted here in the past, there are entities out there that are legitimate, and do provide a valuable service. However, before you move forward, ALWAYS check the USPTO web site and Federal Trade Commission web site for complaints on the entity you want to use. Also, a good place to start is the Wisconsin Innovation Service Center (WISC). Also, check out this previous Small Business IP Protection and Management post for more information.
Here is a listing of patents from the Toledo Blade which were issued in the Toledo Area in August 2006.
One of the most asked questions regarding patents is "Where do I start?". Although we have posted this before, below is an overview of the important steps in beginning the patent process.
The first step:
One of the most important first steps when something is invented is to make a record of the invention. The record can consist of simply a written description accompanied by any sketches, drawings, and/or diagrams. The written description does not necessarily have to be long, but should include enough detail to tell what the invention is and how it works. Any sketches, drawings, and/or diagrams which can supplement the written description should be included. The inventor should then sign and date the written description and sketches, drawings, and/or diagrams, and have a witness sign and date the written description and sketches, drawings, and/or diagrams.
What the record of invention does is provide tangible evidence that the inventor actually possessed the invention on the date included. Other evidence could also be used to pre-date this record. This record is important in the United States because a patent is awarded to the first to invent, not the first to apply for a patent. Thus, this record can become very valuable in the future. A copy of the record should also be given to your patent attorney to be placed in your file. The record is also very helpful to your attorney in understanding the invention and in beginning preparation of a patent application.
The second step:
Once an inventor has made a record of an invention, the next step is to determine whether the invention is patentable. In order to be patentable, an invention must be new, useful, and unobvious. The new and useful requirements are fairly straight forward. Unobviousness is a little less "obvious". However, we will leave that definition for another day.
To determine patentability, one typically conducts a search of the records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Although a search is not required, it is highly recommended as it may unnecessary expenses down the road if an invention is deemed not patentable.
There are essentially three ways to conduct a patentability search.
Once the search has been conducted, the patent documents located can be studied in view of the invention to determine whether the invention appears to be patentable. It should be noted that a Patent Office Examiner will also conduct a search during the patent application process, and may find more pertinent art. Although not foolproof, the patentability search can provide a good indication whether or not the invention is patentable. The next step in the process is to determine what type of a patent application should be filed.
Finally, the inventor's third step:
Once it is determined that an invention is patentable, the inventor must determine what type of application will be filed to adequately protect the invention.
There are two general types of patent applications covering the structure or method of an invention which can be considered, a provisional and a utility.
A provisional patent application includes a written description and drawing(s) of the invention. The application is given a filing date and a serial number, but is not examined by the Patent Office. The formal requirements are less stringent than a regular patent application and and the Government filing fee is lower. Although not required, at least one claim is typically included to preserve international rights in respect of the invention. If the provisional application is converted to a utility patent application within one year of its filing date, the later filed application may obtain the benefit of the filing date of the earlier-filed application.
The filing of a provisional application provides an inventor with the comfort of having the disclosure lodged in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and provides the inventor a year to improve the invention, seek licensees, seek investment capital, test the market, etc. The provisional application will not mature into a patent.
A utility patent application has more stringent requirements than the provisional. The utility application typically includes a more detailed written description (including a full set of claims defining the metes and bounds of the invention sought to be protected) and formal drawings of the invention.
The Government filing fee for the utility application is higher than a provisional application, and the costs of preparation are typically higher as well. A Patent Office Examiner examines the utility patent application. If the invention is found to be patentable, the utility application will mature into a patent. The term of a utility patent is 20 years from the date of application.
A design patent application can also be considered. A design patent covers the overall ornamental appearance of an invention, but the protection afforded by a design patent is typically narrower than that of a utility patent. However, both a design patent application and a provisional or utility patent application can be filed for a single invention if desired. The term of the design patent is 14 years from the date of issue.
As soon as a provisional, utility, or design patent application is filed, any documentation, sketches, drawings or the like may be marked with "pat. pending", "pat. applied for", or the like.
The above steps in the patent process should give inventors a general idea of the patent process. Although other factors may impact patentability, enforceability, and the like, this process can be used as a guide for most inventions.
Have you tried electronic filing lately? Things have gotten much easier. Gone are the old file formats, software downloads, confusing instructions, and "attorney/agent only" requirements. The text and drawings for the application can be files in .pdf format, and the process now includes user friendly "fill in the blank" type forms which have greatly simplified the process. A filing receipt is immediately obtained, and the information is posted on PAIR within a few hours. If you record assignments electronically, instead of waiting weeks for a return postcard or filing receipt, the assignment can now be recorded immediately after filing the application. Also, for a small entity, there is a fee break for filing a utility.
So, if you haven't tried it lately, electronic filing is worth checking into again. Below is a link to a tutorial from the USPTO.
On-line USPTO Webcast for Electronic Filing System (EFS) (be patient, this may take a while to download)
Here is a listing of patents from the Toledo Blade which were issued in the Toledo Area in June 2006.
Here is a listing of patents from the Toledo Blade which were issued in the Toledo Area in May 2006.
Patents issued in the Toledo area in April, from the Toledo Blade.
From a news report on the USPTO web site:
A U.S. district court judge has ordered an invention promotion operation to pay $26 million in consumer redress and has ordered a permanent halt to the bogus claims the company used to recruit customers. The court also ordered that in future dealings with consumers, the company make specific, detailed disclosures about their track record in helping inventors market their ideas. “This affirmative disclosure statement is needed due to defendants’ blatant, varied, and repeated misrepresentations . . . ” Judge Gary L. Lancaster of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania wrote in his decision.
“This outfit is typical of invention promotion scams,” said Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “They touted their ability to turn inventors’ ideas into profitable products, but fewer than one percent of the customers who invested in their services got royalties from their patents that amounted to more than they paid the promoters.”
In a complaint filed by the FTC as part of “Project Mousetrap,” the agency charged that the company used Internet ads and classified ads to lure inventors across the country to sign up for their services. The agency charged that they made false claims about their selectivity in choosing products to promote, false claims about their track record in turning inventions into profitable products, and false claims about the relationship they had with manufacturers. They deceptively claimed that their income came from sharing royalties with inventors rather than from the $800 to $12,000 fees they charged inventors.
Jon Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property commented, “Judge Lancaster’s decision sends a strong signal to all those invention promotion and licensing firms that prey upon America’s independent inventor community that fraudulent and unscrupulous practices will not be tolerated.”
The agency alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements that:
• Consumers who bought their invention-promotion services stand a reasonably good chance of realizing financial gain.
• Their invention-promotion services helped many of their customers' invention ideas become profitable products.
• Their invention-promotion services helped specific inventions become profitable products.
• That they have a vast network of corporations with whom they have ongoing relationships and regularly negotiate successful licensing agreements.
• That their invention marketing services are necessary for consumers to license their invention ideas.
• That they prepare objective and expert analyses of the patentability and marketability of consumers' invention ideas.
Judge Lancaster agreed that the company had engaged in deceptive practices, noting that even after he had issued an order barring deceptive claims, “defendants continued to engage in deceptive practices, albeit in slightly different forms. Based on this past pattern of conduct, there is a very real danger that defendants will alter their business again, yet continue to engage in wrongdoing.”
To prevent those practices, he ordered the company and its principals to pay $26 million for consumer redress and to provide any future clients with a 10-point disclosure statement to allow them objectively to measure the value of the defendants’ assistance. He ordered that when they highlight or advertise specific consumer products or ideas in advertising, they disclose whether the inventor earned royalties that exceeded the total amount of fees paid by the consumer to the defendants. If the defendants claim that they have “matched” or “targeted” an invention to a corporation, they must disclose how many submissions they have made to that corporation in the past five years and the number of licenses entered into with the corporation over the past five years. He required them to disclose that the “Pre-Inventegration” and “modeling” services they sold to inventors were not necessary to achieve licensing agreements and that they disclose that they are not providing consumers with objective or expert opinion of marketability or potential commercial success.
The court also established record keeping provisions to allow the FTC to monitor compliance with Judge Lancaster’s order.
Defendants in this case were Davison & Associates Inc., now known as Davison Design and Development, Inc., Manufacturer's Support Services, Inc., George M. Davison, President and CEO, Thomas Dowler, Gordon M. Davison and Barbara Miele-Davison. The defendants are based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, but have operated nationwide.
Copies of the FTC complaint, and the courts Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law and the Order for Permanent Injunction are available from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, (), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.htm. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to thousands of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.
Here is a listing of patents from the Toledo Blade which were issued in the Toledo area in March 2006.
Here is a listing of patents from the Toledo Blade which were issued in the Toledo area in February 2006.
Want to know where to start on the patent process? Need background material? Want to know the basics when you go to see your patent attorney? Check out this post at Patently-O for more. And as always, you can also check here.
In a rare move, a China based company has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. charging a U.S. company with patent infringement. Netac has sued PNY Technologies in the Eastern District Court in Texas over sales of flash-memory storage devices. Netac has successfully sued a few Chinese companies and also has a pending case against Sony Corp. Netac claims to have invented the flash memory driving using a USB interface, and holds U.S. Patent No. 6,795,327 which issued September 21, 2004.
For more on the lawsuit, see this article in China View.
Dennis Crouch at the Patently-O blog has a post regarding a decision in Golden Blount v. Robert H. Peterson Co. (Fed. Cir. 2006, 04-1609). It appears that the decision has the pendulum of the Knorr-Bremse decision swinging in the opposite direction by holding that "Knorr-Bremse does not prevent a court from finding that a defendant was reckless by obtaining an oral non-infringement opinion but failing to obtain a written opinion". For more, including links to briefs filed in the case, follow the link to Dennis's post.
Here is a listing of patents from the Toledo Blade which were issued to inventors in the Toledo area in January 2006.
Know what to think about the proposed changes at the USPTO designed to improve efficiency? Although some proposed changes appear as though they will improve certain aspects of patent prosecution, others leave you a little apprehensive. Phosita has a simple analysis to help. For a more detailed look at some of the changes, check out posts[1] [2] [3] [4] at Promote the Progress.
We recently received this e-mail from the USPTO Stop Fakes which will be of interest to small businesses:
The start of the New Year brings with it great possibilities. If you are a small business owner, you probably have big ideas for the year ahead, such as new product launches and visibility for your goods. Whatever the scenario, be sure to make IP protection part of your plan.
Your intellectual property, your own innovative idea is comparable to your identity. Once it’s stolen, it’s hard to get it back. Protecting your intellectual property rights early will help safeguard your product or service from illegal replication down the road.
The counterfeiting and piracy of consumer goods and products is steadily on the rise, both in the United States and abroad, and poses threat to the U.S. economy. Small-businesses are particularly vulnerable because they often lack resources and expertise.
Recognizing that this is an increasing concern, last year the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) launched a small business education program. This program is designed to educate small business owners about the increasing problem of intellectual property theft and to inform them about the steps they can take to protect their intellectual property. As part of the program, the USPTO has also launched a Web site dedicated to providing information particularly relevant to small businesses.
For more information on benefits of strong IP protection, both in the United States and overseas, and for details on filing for IP protection, please visit http://w ww.uspto.gov/smallbusiness.
Look at several patents, and it is likely that the use of “said” in the claims of the patents is different. That is because there is really no set standard for the use of “said” in the claims.
There are currently three different practices used in writing patent claims. The first time an element or part is recited in a patent claim, it must be preceded by the indefinite article “a” or “an” (although some exceptions exist for “means” and plural recitations). For each repeated reference of an element, one practice is to use “said” preceding the element and use “the” for anything else. Alternatively, some practitioners precede everything with “said” upon repetition thereof. A third, and somewhat more recent practice, is to omit the use of “said”, and simply use “the” to precede everything repeated.
Currently, the USPTO is accepting claims written according to any of the three practices. It appears that as long as the practitioner is consistent in the usage of one of the practices, the USPTO Examiner will not object. Landis on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting agrees with this as it calls the use of “said” “unobjectionable, although perhaps overly legalistic” (see section 3:11). Thus, even though the use of “said” is still acceptable, it appears that the trend is moving towards simply using “the”.
Here is a listing of patents from the Toledo Blade which were issued to inventors in the Toledo area in December 2005.
One of the most asked questions a patent attorney hears is "How much is my patent worth?". The easy answer is "Whatever you can get for it". However, in reality, there really is no easy answer. The value can be approximated using sales forcasts and the like, but many variables can make or break such an approximation. These variables can include costs of production, market swings, etc.
To assist (at least a little) in gaining some confidence and credibility in assigning a value, a number of links are provided below to articles, book titles, and other rersources. Although no single resource will help assign a value to a patent, the real "value" of the resources will be promoting a better understanding.
Valuing Innovation, Invention, and Patents
A Macro-Economic Model Providing Patent Valuation and Patent Based Company Financial Indicators
Appraising Inventions: The Key to Technology Management
A new report, discussed in an article by Managing Intellectual Property is warning companies to hold back from giving out Blackberry devices to employees until a settlement is reached in a patent infringement dispute between NTP and Research In Motion (RIM). It has been presumed that due to the high profile users of Blackberry devices (including members of Congress) that some concessions would have to be made to permit continued use for existing users. However, based upon the new report, this presumption may not be true. As a Blackberry user, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Stephen Nipper at The Invent Blog found a link to an Inventor's Handbook from the Lemelson-MIT Program which provides an overview of the patenting and commercialization processes. Great find Steve!
One of the most asked questions regarding patents is "Where do I start?". Although we have posted this before, below is an overview of the important steps in beginning the patent process.
The first step:
One of the most important first steps when something is invented is to make a record of the invention. The record can consist of simply a written description accompanied by any sketches, drawings, and/or diagrams. The written description does not necessarily have to be long, but should include enough detail to tell what the invention is and how it works. Any sketches, drawings, and/or diagrams which can supplement the written description should be included. The inventor should then sign and date the written description and sketches, drawings, and/or diagrams, and have a witness sign and date the written description and sketches, drawings, and/or diagrams.
What the record of invention does is provide tangible evidence that the inventor actually possessed the invention on the date included. Other evidence could also be used to pre-date this record. This record is important in the United States because a patent is awarded to the first to invent, not the first to apply for a patent. Thus, this record can become very valuable in the future. A copy of the record should also be given to your patent attorney to be placed in your file. The record is also very helpful to your attorney in understanding the invention and in beginning preparation of a patent application.
The second step:
Once an inventor has made a record of an invention, the next step is to determine whether the invention is patentable. In order to be patentable, an invention must be new, useful, and unobvious. The new and useful requirements are fairly straight forward. Unobviousness is a little less "obvious". However, we will leave that definition for another day.
To determine patentability, one typically conducts a search of the records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Although a search is not required, it is highly recommended as it may unnecessary expenses down the road if an invention is deemed not patentable.
There are essentially three ways to conduct a patentability search.
Once the search has been conducted, the patent documents located can be studied in view of the invention to determine whether the invention appears to be patentable. It should be noted that a Patent Office Examiner will also conduct a search during the patent application process, and may find more pertinent art. Although not foolproof, the patentability search can provide a good indication whether or not the invention is patentable. The next step in the process is to determine what type of a patent application should be filed.
Finally, the inventor's third step:
Once it is determined that an invention is patentable, the inventor must determine what type of application will be filed to adequately protect the invention.
There are two general types of patent applications covering the structure or method of an invention which can be considered, a provisional and a utility.
A provisional patent application includes a written description and drawing(s) of the invention. The application is given a filing date and a serial number, but is not examined by the Patent Office. The formal requirements are less stringent than a regular patent application and and the Government filing fee is lower. Although not required, at least one claim is typically included to preserve international rights in respect of the invention. If the provisional application is converted to a utility patent application within one year of its filing date, the later filed application may obtain the benefit of the filing date of the earlier-filed application.
The filing of a provisional application provides an inventor with the comfort of having the disclosure lodged in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and provides the inventor a year to improve the invention, seek licensees, seek investment capital, test the market, etc. The provisional application will not mature into a patent.
A utility patent application has more stringent requirements than the provisional. The utility application typically includes a more detailed written description (including a full set of claims defining the metes and bounds of the invention sought to be protected) and formal drawings of the invention.
The Government filing fee for the utility application is higher than a provisional application, and the costs of preparation are typically higher as well. A Patent Office Examiner examines the utility patent application. If the invention is found to be patentable, the utility application will mature into a patent. The term of a utility patent is 20 years from the date of application.
A design patent application can also be considered. A design patent covers the overall ornamental appearance of an invention, but the protection afforded by a design patent is typically narrower than that of a utility patent. However, both a design patent application and a provisional or utility patent application can be filed for a single invention if desired. The term of the design patent is 14 years from the date of issue.
As soon as a provisional, utility, or design patent application is filed, any documentation, sketches, drawings or the like may be marked with "pat. pending", "pat. applied for", or the like.
The above steps in the patent process should give inventors a general idea of the patent process. Although other factors may impact patentability, enforceability, and the like, this process can be used as a guide for most inventions.
Here is a listing of patents, from The Blade, issued to inventors in the Toledo Area in September 2005.
John Doll has been named Commissioner for Patents according to a press release from the USPTO. The press release is included below. One item of interest is that Commissioner Doll obtained his undergraduate degree from Bowling Green State University located about twenty minutes from Toledo.
John J. Doll Named Commissioner for Patents
U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez has named John J. Doll to be Commissioner for Patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Doll has been Acting Commissioner for Patents since April 2005.
In response to the appointment, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property Jon Dudas noted, “I am pleased that the Secretary has chosen John Doll to be the Commissioner for Patents. John has excellent management skills combined with a dedication to outstanding service to the public and a focus on internal reform.”As Commissioner for Patents, Doll is responsible for the productivity and quality of the work done by more than 4,000 patent examiners, paralegals and other support professionals, for patent examination policy, budget decisions, and for patent-related Information Technology (IT) decisions.
From January – April 2005, Doll served as the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Resources and Planning directing information processing and technology, and budget formulation and execution for patent operations. He previously served as Special Assistant to the Under Secretary. Doll was a group director from 1995-2005 in the technology center responsible for examination of biotechnology, organic chemistry, and pharmaceutical patent applications. He was an integral part of the team responsible for last year’s implementation of the Image File Wrapper (IFW), the USPTO’s electronic patent application processing system.
Doll has received numerous awards throughout his USPTO career, including the Vice Presidential Hammer Award for his work in establishing the Biotech Customer Partnership; a Department of Commerce Gold Medal for his work on the team that implemented IFW; and a Silver Medal for his work on automating patent examiner tools.
During his tenure as a group director, Doll managed the development and implementation of training materials used by patent examiners to apply the enablement provisions of the patent statute in reviewing applications. He also helped develop and implement the guidelines and training materials used by examiners evaluating patent applications for compliance with the utility and written description provisions of patent law.
Doll holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Bowling Green State University in chemistry and physics and a Master of Science degree in physical chemistry from Penn State University. He joined the USPTO in 1974.
Here is a listing of patents, from The Blade, issued to inventors in the Toledo Area.
WIPO has published a guide called "Inventing the Future: An Introduction to Patents for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises" for entrepreneurs, inventors and small to medium sized businesses for how patents can be used to further strategic business goals. Other publications currently available are "Making a Mark: An Introduction to Trademarks for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises" and "Looking Good: An Introduction to Industrial Designs for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises". Other related publications are expected to follow. For more information on these and other publications, visit the Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Division (SME) of the WIPO web site.
WIPO recently announced that PCT patent applications will now be processed in a fully electronic manner for applications from the receiving offices in the Republic of Korea and Finland. Full electronic processing from all receiving offices will gradually be implemented. WIPO has indicated that the electronic processing is expected to facilitate efficiency gains and improved services. No paper file will be created for those applications processed electronically.
Visit the WIPO web site for the official announcement.
Here is a listing of patents from the Toledo Blade which were issued to inventors in the Toeldo area in June 2005.
From the USPTO home page:
USPTO To Hold Live On-Line for Independent Inventors
Senior officials of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, as well as a representative from the Patent and Trademark Depository Library Program, will be available live on-line on Thursday, May 26 , from 2 to 3 pm (EST). They will be answering questions and offering tips for independent inventors. Instructions for taking part in the on-line will be posted on the home page of the USPTO website at 10 am (EST) on Thursday. Inventors can begin logging on for the on-line at 1:30 pm.
The independent inventor on-line is part of the USPTO's continuing efforts to promote and protect America's independent inventors. This effort includes educating inventor-entrepreneurs about the risks of working with invention development companies.
Also, transcripts and frequently asked questions and answers are available for past sessions.
Here is a listing of patents from the Toledo Blade which were issued to inventors in the Toledo area in April 2005.
Here is a listing of patents from the Toledo Blade which were issued to inventors in the Toledo area in March 2005.
Here is a listing of patents from the Toledo Blade which were issued to inventors in the Toledo Area in February 2005.
For individual inventors and small companies close to Toledo, Ohio, a great resource to use in the initial stages of evaluating the patentability of an invention is the Toledo Public Library, Downtown Branch. This branch is a federal depository, which maintains the full collection of U.S. patents. A great place to start is a help sheet the library provides. The help sheet provides basic information on patents, patent searching, trademarks, and copyrights. Using this resource, inventors and small companies can obtain valuable information regarding patents and published patent applications related to an invention. The library staff is well trained and willing to assist.
Here is a listing of patents from the Toledo Blade which were issued to inventors in the Toledo Area in January 2005.
To supplement the description of the patent process in a previous post (see Patent Process), here is a link to a 17 minute video entitled "An Introduction to the Patent System" provided by the Federal Judicial Center. The video provides an overview of the patent process, why patents are needed, and also touches on why patent disputes arise. The reason for development of the video is to help jurors gain a basic understanding of patents.
With March Madness rapidly approaching, two patents which are relevant to the tournament come to mind. First is U.S. Pat. No. 1,718,305 to a Basket Ball (spelling from the patent) for obvious reasons.
The other is U.S. Pat. No. 5,356,330 to an Apparatus for Simulating a "High Five", for those who have to watch the games alone.
Back by popular demand, the most requested post from my blog is a summary of the patent process. Click here for the post detailing the patent process.
WIPO has added a new feature to its web site which recognizes some of the notable inventions and inventors that have passed through the PCT system. WIPO has assembled an "interesting" assortment of inventions deemed notable.
In the January 2005 issue of the PCT Newsletter, it was reported that the one millionth PCT application was filed at the end of 2004. The report indicates that from the beginning of the PCT in 1978, it took 18 years to reach 250,000 total applications, but only four more years to reach 500,000. In four more years, that number reached one million.
In the U.S., the number of issued patents is approaching seven million. It is anticipated that that number will be reached by the end of 2005 or early in 2006.
The USPTO will be holding an on-line question and answer session for individual inventors on January 25, 2005 from 2-3 PM EDT. Below is a press release from the main page of the USPTO web site:
USPTO To Hold Live On-Line for Independent Inventors
Senior officials of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, as well as a representative from the Patent and Trademark Depository Library Program, will be available live on-line next Tuesday, January 25, from 2 to 3 pm (EDT). They will be answering questions and offering tips for independent inventors. Instructions for taking part in the on-line will be posted on the home page of the USPTO website at 10 am (EDT) on Tuesday. Inventors can begin logging on for the on-line at 1:30 pm.
The independent inventor on-line is part of the USPTO's continuing efforts to promote and protect America 's independent inventors. This effort includes educating inventor-entrepreneurs about the risks of working with invention development companies.
To see a transcript of a similar chat held by the USPTO on December 7, 2004, click here. For access to all transcripts for these chats, click here.