• Find the point of novelty
  • Broadcast your rights
  • Turn ideas into assets
  • Drive forward
  • Draw the future

Category: News

US Trademark Office Proposes Requiring Foreign Trademark Applicants to Use a US Attorney

About two months ago, the US Patent and Trademark Office proposed a rule change for representation of foreign-domiciled trademark applicants. The rule would affect trademark applicants, registrants, or parties to a proceeding such as an opposition or cancellation, whose domicile or principal place of business is not located within the United States or its territories. If the rule is implemented, these parties – or their foreign attorneys – would need to seek an attorney who is licensed to practice within the US.

The change has three stated goals. First, to increase “customer compliance” with federal trademark law. The second goal is to ensure the accuracy of submissions to the USPTO, and the third is to ensure the integrity of the US trademark register.

These goals all strike me as a little impersonal and machine-like, which may be the purpose behind an efficiency-driven rule change. They really just boil down to the hope that using a US attorney will increase the likelihood that the trademark application or registration, or proceeding flows smoothly through the Trademark Office because the person responsible for it will more likely be familiar with the Trademark Office’s rules. Of course, I’m not sure that these rules are effective measure for achieving the goals: plenty of US attorneys file trademark applications but shouldn’t – just because an attorney is barred in a US state does not mean that he or she is qualified to file a trademark application with the USPTO. We see lots of non-trademark attorneys that screw up filings because they just don’t know what they are doing. I am sure there are many foreign-based trademark attorneys who are better at prosecuting US trademarks than US non-trademark attorneys.

Many practitioners believe this is a response to the influx of Chinese sellers on Amazon and their use of protections offered through the Amazon Brand Registry 2.0 platform. This seems possible. We have seen more cases filed by Chinese applicants without an attorney of their own. Last week, we filed two actions against trademarks owned by Chinese-based applicants without any attorney at all. In both cases, the applications included specimens that appeared fraudulent, digitally-created photograph mock-ups meant to trick a US Examiner into accepting the application. And, both were instances where the applicants were also selling knock-off products on Amazon of my clients’ products. More so, it is well known that, while it costs as little as $225 to file a trademark application pro se, the Chinese government will award around $800 to a successful registration. Therefore, filing fake applications can be a revenue source for a Chinese resident.

The rule change is certainly good news for US attorneys, because it will drive more business to us. Much of that business likely doesn’t really need us – it can probably be competently handled by an experienced foreign attorney. But, some foreign applicants will benefit. And, some fraudulent trademark applications will be curtailed. If the Trademark Office were to require foreign applicants to first find a US attorney, this would raise the bar for filing slightly and would undoubtedly reduce the number of junk trademark applications.

We handle trademark applications in the US and outside the country frequently, both for domestic and foreign clients.  If you have questions about this rule change, or if you are in need of a US attorney, please don’t hesitate to contact us or call +1-602-281-6481.



The Patent Office is Not (Yet) Affected by the Government Shutdown

Nearly a month into the government shutdown, the United States Patent and Trademark Office continues to run at full capacity.  The Patent Office is somewhat self-funded, in that the fees that applicants pay to file and prosecute patent applications are used to pay examiners and other staff.  However, the Patent Office is not allowed to spend all of that money willy-nilly; its budget is set by Congress, and the Office is permitted to spend up to that budget limit assuming sufficient fees are collected. 

In past years, sufficient fees have been collected, and with great foresight, the Patent Office has funded an operating reserve account with some of those fees.  While the Patent Office has a separate reserve fund which is supplied by fees paid in excess of the budget, the money into the operating reserve represent fees siphoned from the budget, perhaps the delta between the budget and the operating costs of the PTO.  And, while the reserve fund is empty, the operating reserve has about $300 million.  This is enough to keep the Patent Office running for a short time, about five weeks.

The operating reserve is not exhausted, but is being steadily consumed with this shutdown.  As it drains further, “non-essential” activities will be suspended.  Examiners will likely pause their reviews of applications.  However, the filing systems – and the staff necessary to support them – will remain online so that application filing deadlines can continue to be met.  It is not clear what will happen if the shutdown continues to the point where there aren’t even fees to keep the filing systems up….



Patent Office Transitions to MyUSPTO Login

For many years, registered patent attorneys, patent agents, and some pro se inventors have been able to log into a secure portal at the Patent Office website to file and monitor patent applications. The portal is protected by both a password and a digital key that requires a lengthy certification process with the Patent Office, so it has mostly just been used by attorneys and agents.

This past month, the Patent Office introduced MyUSPTO.gov, which it billed as a “new, simpler, and safer USPTO.gov account” through which you can access patent and trademark files, monitor a docket, create watches to keep track of competitive patents or your own, and to access the search databases for both patents and trademarks. It is an attempt to unify patent and trademark records, as well as the filing and monitoring systems previously available through the Patent Office only.

Practitioners were asked to link their old portal accounts to their new MyUSPTO.gov accounts by the end of October. Fearing that the old portal would become inaccessible come November, I did this at the beginning of October. What I’ve learned is that while MyUSPTO.gov does offer all the things mentioned above, it also additionally requires two-step verification each day, after completing a prolonged CAPTCHA. This is annoying and unnecessary. I’m not aware of any other provider that requires daily two-step verification; even WIPO doesn’t have it.

As a result, I haven’t been using the MyUSPTO.gov login at all. All of the old services are accessible, and more easily accessible than MyUSPTO.gov. The USPTO is reporting that the digital keys will be officially retired in December, and that a new Patent Center software suite will be rolled out in 2020. As long as the Office continues to provide the old portal login system, I will probably use it, unless they ease this two-step requirement.



Is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Affected by the 2018 Government Shutdown?

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is not affected by the shutdown which has closed many government offices and agencies after Congress failed to pass a funding resolution.  Navigate to www.uspto.gov and you’ll be greeted by the banner announcing the Office is still open.

While other agencies are dependent upon immediate funding for their continuance, the USPTO maintains a reserve account of funds. The funds allow the Office to continue operating at nearly full capacity for at least a few weeks. These are collected, in part, from the applicants that have filed and prosecuted patent and trademark applications in the United States in previous years.

In December 2017, the Commerce Department issued a shutdown plan which noted: “The USPTO anticipates that it will have sufficient funds from other than current year appropriations to continue full operations for a brief period after a general lapse in appropriations commences. Therefore, all employees of the USPTO will be excepted for such period following a lapse in appropriations.” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross emailed USPTO employees on Friday, January 19, 2018 directing them to continue reporting for work until they were notified otherwise.

Collections from previous years enable the USPTO to operate despite furloughs at other federal agencies. The USPTO is well-funded; in fact, it generates far more money in fees than it consumes in expenses. However, fee diversion moves much of its revenue to other governmental agencies. The 2011 America Invents Act allows the Office to trap some of those fees into the reserve account before they can be diverted outside the agency.

Should the shutdown continue and the reserve funds be consumed, employees would begin to be furloughed. A small staff would nevertheless remain to accept new applications and to maintain the IT infrastructure. The electronic filing systems through which most patent attorneys and agents correspond with the USPTO would continue to operate, allowing filing dates to be established and deadlines to be met. The shutdown does close down the File Repository Warehouse, where the paper files for older patent applications are maintained. That warehouse is not operated by the USPTO and so is affected by the shutdown. As such, requests for copies of paper files (which normally take 1-4 weeks for production) will likely be delayed. This would not affect electronic files, of course.

In 2013, the government shut down lasted for two and a half weeks. The USPTO stayed open then, too, using the same reserve fund.



Utility and Design Patent Issuances Up in 2017

Nearly every year for the past decade, the Patent Offices have issued more utility and design patents.  2017 was no exception.  While former Director Kappo’s guiding hand has often been praised for increasing patent quality, the patent numbers during his oversight improved as well.  The Office was without an official director during most of Trump’s first year and is now headed by acting Director Joseph Matal.  Despite the uncertainty, in 2017, there were approximately 5% more issued utility patents and roughly 10% more issued design patents than in 2016.  Charts from Patently-O can be seen here.



Intellectual Property Lawsuit Between Google/Waymo and Uber

Trial is moving forward in the Google/Waymo v. Uber intellectual property case. It has been thought that this lawsuit might help crown an early king of the self-driving vehicle industry, which Uber describes as potentially “the most lucrative business in history.”

In February 2017, Google spin-off Waymo sued Uber for misappropriation of trade secrets and patent infringement, stemming from the actions of former Google employee Anthony Levandowski. Levandowski was a high-level engineer in Google’s self-driving car division. He downloaded nearly 10GB of Google’s data – over 14,000 files – a few weeks before leaving Google to start his own company in January 2016. His company, Otto, was focused on autonomous truck technology. Just six months after he started the company, Uber acquired it for $680 million, and Levandowski was named to head Uber’s self-driving car work.

Not long after, one of Uber’s supplies mistakenly emailed information to Waymo about a circuit board Uber had ordered. Waymo looked at the board, thought it was a little too similar to the technology it had been working on while Levandowski was part of its team, and filed suit for a preliminary injunction against Uber.

A preliminary injunction is, essentially, a temporary restraining order. It is an order from a court temporarily preventing an entity from taking certain actions until more evidence can be gathered and a lawsuit filed (or not filed) or settlement reached. Here, Waymo requested that Uber’s work on self-driving cars be halted until Waymo could figure out possible damages and how to proceed next. Waymo won that injunction, showing a likelihood of prevailing in an eventual lawsuit and the danger of irreparable harm.

The case revolves primarily around LiDAR, which is a laser-based radar technology that allows a computer to map or “see” an environment. LiDAR has been used extensively for decades, but has recently come to prominence with autonomous vehicle developments. The trade secrets and patent claims revolve around this technology. The trade secrets claims rest, in part, on things like the designs for the printed circuit boards that Waymo developed, the position and orientation of the diodes and photodetectors on the boards, the selection and placement of optical elements for modifying LiDAR laser beams, and the laser pulse rate in the LiDAR system to create a precise resolution profile of objects in the environment. The patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,836,922, 9,368,273, and 9,086,273) also cover LiDAR technology. For instance, the ‘922 patent claims protection in a LiDAR device including a rotatable housing including transmit blocks and receive blocks, with a number of transmitters and detectors in them, such that light is emitted from the device and return light is gathered and collimated, or aligned, and focused back into the detectors. This technology assists in three-dimensional mapping of the environment.

Uber has several different types of LiDAR devices, and the patent claims reflected actions against them. However, in July, most of the patent claims were dropped after the judge encouraged the parties to narrow the issues, and after Uber stopped work on its “so-called” Spider technology on one of the LiDAR devices.

Last week, Waymo’s case grew more tenuous with the release of a due diligence report Uber commissioned before it acquired Otto. Although report includes dark details like Levandowski’s deletion of files and then destruction of the hard drives holding those files. Levandwoski tried to talk with Uber CEO Travis Kalanick about the hard drives, but Kalanick put up a brick wall to the discussion. Together with the report, documents regarding Uber’s designs were released, and even the judge noted that “the product is dissimilar. In many ways, it may be a vast improvement of what was going on at Waymo. So [Waymo has] come up a little short there.” In light of the documents release, trial, set to begin yesterday, has been postponed now to early December.



Firm Quoted in Newspaper Regarding Recycling

A few months ago, the firm was recognized as a Green Business Leader. Now the word is getting out. I was interviewed last week by the Arizona Republic regarding the program and recycling in Phoenix generally. You can see the article here.



Government Trademark Fees To Rise

The United States Patent and Trademark Office will be increasing certain trademark fees on January 14, 2017. The USPTO is unique among government agencies in that it is a profit center for the US; it generates more revenue for the government than it expends in operating costs.

Most, if not all, of the increasing fees are for paper filings. Trademark applications filed by paper are much more time-consuming than those lodged electronically through the Trademark Office’s online filing system. The filing fee for paper applications is nearly doubling to $600. It appears the costs associated with pursuing a registered trademark are not going to change.

Trademark fees are set at levels projected to cover future costs, including operating costs and reserve funds. The number of applications filed, and the number of registered trademark issued, continues to climb this year, as it has for the past six years. The Trademark Office is predicting that this will not change in the near future. Further, the Office desires to not increase the pendency of a trademark application, which currently averages 9.8 months, despite the predicted increase in trademark filings. Further, the Trademark Office is upgrading its IT systems.

The Trademark Office has chosen to fund these changes and improvements by shifting the fee burden to those still filing by paper. I don’t have figures for the number of applications filed electronically versus in paper, but I find it fascinating that there are apparently enough paper filings that these fee increases will bring in enough money to fund its changes. As the Office puts it: “The fees will allow the Office to further USPTO strategic objectives by: Better aligning fees with the full cost of the relevant products and services; protecting the integrity of the register by incentivizing more timely filing or examination of applications and other filings and more efficient resolution of appeals and trials; and promoting the efficiency of the process, in large part through lower-cost electronic filing options. The changes will also continue to recover the aggregate estimated cost of Trademark and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) operations and USPTO administrative services that support Trademark operations.”



Bicycle Saddle Patent Litigation

bicycle-patent-on-saddle-1 bicycle-patent-on-saddle-2Several bicycle manufacturers around the world have found themselves under attack from an Australian company, Icon-IP, that is suing for infringement of two bicycle saddle patents.

Icon IP had previously twice sued Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc. in 2013 in US courts for its use of a split saddle. Specialized, of course, makes many of the components it uses on its own bicycles, the seat included. Split saddles, those with split noses, or with longitudinal central slots, have become much more popular in the last 5-10 years, with many manufacturers now offering such saddles stock with a new bicycle. Specialized successfully dismissed one of those suits and settled another.

Now Icon IP is suing Merida Industry and well-known saddle manufacturer Selle Royal in Germany for infringement, and has given notice to Giant Bicycles that it may also be receiving a legal complaint.

 

 



Patent Examiners Mostly Accurate in Time

The Office of Inspector General, following up on a report from last year about a patent examiner who had received $25,000 by falsely claiming worked hours, has just released a report on two concurrent studies of about 80% of the 10,000 examiners at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The study found that while most examiners accurately report their hours and time worked, there is still a large amount of waste in salary, overtime, and bonuses paid out.

The OIG conducted a 9-month study as well as an overlapping 15-month study in looking at time spent. It compared timestamp data from several independent sources within the Patent Office with hours reported by the examiners themselves. The OIG notes that its study was “conservative,” excluded significant amounts of unsupported hours, and thus likely underestimates the number of hours falsely reported, perhaps by as much as half.

The short and long studies were generally consistent in their findings. Approximately 180,000 examiner-hours each year are unsupported by any electronic records, timestamp, or method of verification. It appears therefore, that those hours were wasted, in that compensation was paid for them without any work being performed in return. In the 9-month period, $8.8 million dollars was potentially paid out on unsupported hours; in the 15-month period, $18.3 million was paid out.

Much of the waste comes from a few of the examiners. About 3.5-5% of the examiners accounted for 39-43% of the waste; at least 10% of their hours were unsupported. Of those, many had above-average performance ratings, and about 10% essentially took 3 days off every 80 work hours. One-quarter of the wasted compensation was for overtime work. Further, had the compensation been paid out for actual work, the OIG found that the backlog would have been reduced by 7,500 applications in 9 months and by 16,000 applications in 15 months. This is quite troubling when one considers that most applicants wait 1-2 years for an application to receive examination.

The OIG concluded that there were several reasons for the waste. First, some examiners have realized that they can game the system by falsely reporting time. Second, some examiners are very efficient and get their work done faster than the time allotted yet still report the full time. Other examiners complete more work in the allotted time but then claim overtime. The time allowances and production goals have not been updated since 1976. The OIG recommends enhancing the time-tracking systems and updating production goals within the art units.