Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


We are looking for moderators.  Message the admin if interested.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
 on: Today at 02:07 pm 
Started by MR - Last post by Robert K S
Is there some reason why the inventors can't sign documents assigning their interests to both applicant organizations?

 on: Today at 02:04 pm 
Started by manuscope - Last post by Robert K S
A good searcher has to understand both the field of the art and the particular invention very well to come up with relevant art.  A good searcher also has to have good tools.  Google provides decent search facility that in my opinion is a vast improvement over not only the public web-based USPTO search facility but also the more sophisticated PubEAST and PubWEST tools that are available at certain libraries across the country.  Pro se applicants may have a very good understanding of the field and their particular invention but may not understand searching and how to find what they really need to be looking for.  Many professional searchers have access to good tools and the talent to use them effectively, but will still produce worthless searches because they don't quite know what they ought to be looking for.  Practitioners in close contact with inventors and with access to and training on some of the better search tools provide a good balance.

A case study looking at how training and workflows differ between EPO searchers and USPTO searchers would probably be highly illustrative.  Not only does it usually appear that EPO searchers take the time to understand the invention and the field (as opposed to the USPTO tactic of leaning on the BRI standard as an excuse for ignorance), EPO searchers will frequently come up with art to show features that cannot be found by keyword searching, which means they must have looked through numerous images in numerous databases to arrive at evidence of the conventionality of the feature searched.

Whether your search returns 100 or 1,000 patents is irrelevant to the quality of the search.  You do not have time to read 100 or 1,000 patents.  What you want to be doing is finding the 1-5 closest prior art references.  If you're getting 5+ things that seem pretty close in various ways, it's time to think about narrowing your conception of what your invention is.  Ditto if you're getting 1 good reference that differs from your invention only by features that are demonstrably conventional and it would have been obvious to modify the reference with those features.

 on: Today at 01:16 pm 
Started by Patentlawnewb - Last post by PIT
We will be hosting a series of live webinars for Q&A with practicing patent attorneys, faculty members, and attorneys from interviewing law firms in early January.  For those of you who are interested and have additional questions regarding the program, please register for at least one of the Q&A sessions here:

 on: Today at 12:25 pm 
Started by raj29 - Last post by lazyexaminer
I applied around 5 years ago so this info may be out of date.

Like most other federal jobs, you apply via USA Jobs, if you make the list that your qualifications are adequate you get an interview, then they decide who gets the job(s).

The qualifications were member of a state bar and you had to answer questions about your knowledge of appeals, the relevant technical subject matter, ability to be productive, work in groups, stuff like that. They tell you what to explain on the job listing. A writing sample was required, and probably school transcripts. Of course those are minimum requirements.

The time frame was annoying. From application to interview was like 1-2 months. But I feel like it was more like 6 months after the interview by time I was informed I didn't get the position. And of course no one had any info about anything until the official word. Fortunately I didn't make plans based on a quick decision.

The word on the street was that outside experience and clerkships were very heavily weighted. I had neither, and it did appear very few internal hires were made. Of course the people in charge now are different so the focus could be different who knows.

As to the later posts, I know a guy from big IP law DC who got the job a few years after I applied, he was about a 5-7 year associate. I heard he just wanted better work/life balance but I haven't talked to him about it.

 on: Today at 12:12 pm 
Started by MR - Last post by MR
If two corporations have a joint development agreement and agree to own any resulting patents jointly, can I file an application listing both as Applicants?  The ADS makes this possible, but, for example, MPEP 409.05 II (explaining how to show "a sufficient proprietary interest") says:

A proprietary interest obtained other than by assignment or agreement to assign may be demonstrated by an appropriate legal memorandum to the effect that a court of competent jurisdiction (federal, state, or foreign) would by the weight of authority in that jurisdiction award title of the invention to the 37 CFR 1.46 applicant.

The language "would ... award title of the invention" doesn't seem to me to include the case of awarding title to an interest in the invention.

 on: Today at 11:59 am 
Started by PassingThru - Last post by artchain
Names, titles, and short phrases are not protected by copyright.

You are free to use this term in your work.

 on: Today at 10:56 am 
Started by dab2d - Last post by bartmans
Dear Dab2d,

I suppose your 371 EP application is the regional European patent application after the international phase, generally referred to as the Euro-PCT.

It is not allowed to include any prior applications by reference in said application (you may include the wording, but it will ahve no legal effect and probably you will need to remove it from the application upon grant).
Further, you may file the application with a new set of claims, but these claims (as for any other amenments that are later made to the claims) should be based on the application as filed, i.e. the PCT application. Please also be warned that 'based' in this sentence means that any amendedment should be clearly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed. This is a very strict requirement under the European patent law and it has cost may US-based application the possibility to obtain a patent.
As a consequence, it is thus not possible to derive the amendment from the priority application if there is not a sufficient basis in the PCT application.

 on: Today at 10:40 am 
Started by manuscope - Last post by bartmans
Patent searching is an art or profession in itself. With all due respect, but please do not think that since you have searched a patent database on Google patents you have done a patent search.

There are extensive training courses for patent searchers and currently,a certiciation fro qulaified patent information professionalis is being  developed (see
The databases that are used by search professionals are databases that add something to th eplain patent iformation. These databases are only available upon subscripotion. The most important are: the Derwent database on Thomson Innovation, Questel/Orbit databases like QPAT and FAMPAT, PatBase, PatSnap, Delphion and many others. See this information ( for a complete overview of search systems.

As you will see there each of the systems has advantages and disadvantages. Covergae (which countries and how far back) are covered is one of the discriminating factors. Further, the databases may have the full text of the patent or only the abstracts, which kind of machine tarnslations for non-English texts, they may include further descriptions like classifications, standard keywords, a thesaurus, etcetera. One of the most complete databases is the Derwent database, which has a very large coverage, and for which man-mase abstracts are provided in English which imporves the standardization of the information that is retrieved. Derwent further has a special classification scheme that can add in searching next to the IPC, US Class en Japanese F-term classifications that are available on the 'normal' databases.

The results that are generated by a search depend on the precision and recall of teh search, and there is no standard to be set how many 'pages' of results you should flick through before being complete. In principle, a search is never complete and here the famous 20/80 rule applies: in 20% of the time you will find 80% of the relevant documents, but to find the remaining 20% of relevant documents you have to spend 80% of the time.

I hope that the above demonstrates that patent searching (and generally information retrieval) is something that best can be left to the specialists and this is what is generally done by patent agents and patent attorneys; they will hardly ever search themselves.

 on: Today at 06:13 am 
Started by manuscope - Last post by manuscope
Before google came out with Google Patent and Scholar, most users would not be able to do a properly search based on USPTO. Would require adding the ID code which was not easy for many inventors. Now a days, its pretty easy to do a search with Google Patent and Scholar. I would think that most lawyers and inventors would just use Google. Or do professional patent searchers use other platforms?
Lastly, if I searched about 20 to 30 pages which had about 10 different patent enough of a search? Is this considered a lot, enough, or little? For me, I have done about 20 to 30 pages for about 5 key words ... so totaling 100 pages or 1000 patents. What would be the amount of search a lawyer do for normal, and "extensive" search.

 on: Today at 03:48 am 
Started by PassingThru - Last post by PassingThru

I wonder if you could give me an opinion on use of the word 'AntiSocial Personality Disorder'? My intention is to use it in a published work that that is copyright-free, meaning that anyone can re-publish it and (probably) rewrite it.

The first use of the phrase is about 1980, in the DSM (a manual for diagnosising mental disorders). The phrase is commonly abbreviated to APD or ASPD and is widely used.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10


Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

Page created in 0.107 seconds with 18 queries.