Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fliptop]

We were told by USPTO to fix wording in POA in Japanese originating divisional where we had to file a TD.  We fixed it.  Now should we file the new POA in the original (already issued/granted) patent? Will it affect parent/granted application if we don't fix it/file it there and leave as is?

[klaviernista]

We were told by USPTO to fix wording in POA in Japanese originating divisional where we had to file a TD.  We fixed it.  Now should we file the new POA in the original (already issued/granted) patent? Will it affect parent/granted application if we don't fix it/file it there and leave as is?

Based on the facts, I wouldn't worry about the parent.  The POA update in the divisional was likely necessary so that you could file the TD on behalf of the client (you would need to be an attorney of record).  Don't see any need to file an updated POA in an issued case.

[fliptop]

You are a gentleman and a scholar, thank you.  Yeah I agree, don't want to stir up trouble and can't see that the POA in already issued patent makes any difference unless egregious misrepresentation that is not the case here merely a translation problem.

[NJ Patent1]

Just as a follow-up question; powers are on an application-by-application basis, right?  Klav could have powers in parent #1, I could have powers in child #2.  I can TD #2 over #1, but not #1 over #2.  FWIW, I "force" clients to sign TDs to extent possible.  Simple 2 do, fax OK.  I want no mistake that client knowingly gave-up client's property (patent term), and bound itself by "K" to US courts 2 keep #1 and #2 in common ownership. 

[klaviernista]

Just as a follow-up question; powers are on an application-by-application basis, right?  Klav could have powers in parent #1, I could have powers in child #2.  I can TD #2 over #1, but not #1 over #2.  FWIW, I "force" clients to sign TDs to extent possible.  Simple 2 do, fax OK.  I want no mistake that client knowingly gave-up client's property (patent term), and bound itself by "K" to US courts 2 keep #1 and #2 in common ownership.

You have that right.