Most patent applications are normally published while still pending and prior to the grant/issuance of a patent. Such publication allows the public to see the contents of the application and expands the publication of technical information to include applications that do not turn into granted patents. But when does this pre-grant publication normally occur? And are there any exceptions or variations in the normal publication schedule? This article addresses issues around when patent applications are published occur prior to grant.
When Publication Normally Occurs
In the USA, any new utility or plant patent application is normally published after eighteen (18) months have elapsed from the earliest filing date. The 18-month publication period is based on the earliest effective filing date or priority date. So if there was a prior provisional or foreign priority application, or the application is a continuing application, the 18-month timeline runs from the earliest priority or “parent” application’s filing date rather than the filing date of the current application. Publication normally occurs as soon as possible after the 18-month deadline arrives. In practice, there may be administrative delays in publication. As a result, it might not always happen at exactly eighteen months.
However, U.S. design patent applications and provisional patent applications are never published before grant (35 U.S.C. § 122(b)(2)(A)). Also, reissue patent applications are not published because they always relate to a prior patent that was already granted and therefore already publicly available.
PCT international patent applications are also published after eighteen months (PCT Art. 21). Most other jurisdictions publish patent applications after eighteen months too. Sometimes this public availability in other countries is referred to as providing “laid open” patent applications.
Exceptions to the Normal Publication Schedule
There are some exceptions to the default 18-month pre-grant publication of utility and plant patent applications.
Sometimes pre-grant publication is delayed or does not occur at all. In the USA, applicants can expressly request non-publication, which is only possible if no foreign patent protection is sought. If a non-publication request is filed, the patent and related file wrapper contents only become accessible when a patent is granted, if at all. There can also be secrecy orders that delay publication (and grant of a patent) when the application’s subject matter implicates national security interests. And applications that are no longer pending at eighteen months are not published. That situation arises if a patent is granted in less than eighteen months or if an applicant files a timely express abandonment request.
It is also worth noting that pre-grant publication only began in the U.S. starting with applications filed on or after November 29, 2000. So pre-grant publications simply did not exist in the USA prior to that time frame. Although pre-grant publications have existed in many other countries for a much longer time.
Occasionally pre-grant publications will occur earlier than the usual 18-month schedule. For instance, applicants in the U.S. can expressly request early publication and/or republication, although such requests are rare.
Austen Zuege is an attorney at law and registered U.S. patent attorney in Minneapolis whose practice encompasses patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain name cybersquatting, IP agreements and licensing, freedom-to-operate studies, client counseling, and IP litigation. If you have patent, trademark, or other IP issues, he can help.
As 2024 begins, some recent and upcoming changes in practice at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) for patent and trademark matters and at the U.S. Copyright Office for copyright matters merit attention, along with developments from U.S. courts pertaining to those areas of intellectual property (IP) law. (Click the preceding links to jump to desired content).
Patents
Non-DOCX filing format requirements postponed (yet again)
The deeply unpopular surcharge for U.S. non-provisional utility patent applications in a non-DOCX file format has been postponed yet again, until January 17, 2024. Although even when in effect this surcharge will not apply to PCT national phase entries, provisional applications, plant applications, or design applications. Furthermore, the USPTO has indefinitely extended a highly limited opportunity to file a back-up applicant-generated “Auxiliary PDF” version of an application filed in DOCX format, in order to potentially allow for later correction of USPTO-side conversion errors involving the DOCX version. These postponements and extensions are the result of many strong objections from U.S. patent practitioners and practitioner organizations.
It remains to be seen whether there will be further postponements or a larger change in USPTO policy about mandatory DOCX filings, which in general provides only a small clerical benefit to the USPTO while placing large burdens and costs on applicants.
Guidance for creating application documents (hopefully) compliant for USPTO DOCX filing is available here. But applicants with complex application content should consider the possibility of paying the non-DOCX official surcharge and filing applications in PDF format to avoid the risks associated with USPTO-generated errors in substantive application content.
Electronic patent “eGrants” now in place
On April 18, 2023, the USPTO began issuing an electronic PDF copies of patent “eGrants” as the official versions of granted patents. Continuing a long tradition, patent eGrants are issued on Tuesdays. As of December 2023, “ceremonial” paper copies were still being automatically sent as part of a transition period. The end date of that transition period, when paper copies will no longer be sent, has not been specified. Whenever the transition period does end, paper copies of patents can still be ordered from the USPTO for a small official fee (currently $25). However, ordered copies will either be a certified copy of the entire patent (which lacks the decorative color cover like eGrants and instead includes a certification cover page) or a “presentation” patent (which is a partial certified copy of only the front page of the patent, with a unique certification statement and special seal). Both of those differ from current “ceremonial” copies.
Of note, any color drawings in patents do appear in color in the new electronic patent eGrants. This potentially reduces the need to specially order color copies.
Further, the USPTO will also begin issuing certificates of correction electronically starting January 30, 2024. Paper hard copies of certificates of correction will not be mailed after that date, although they can still be specifically requested for a fee like other patent documents.
Massive official fee increases proposed, but implementation unclear
In April of 2023, the USPTO announced plans for significant official fee increases. Materials related to those efforts can be found here, including an Executive Summary of the key official patent fee increases proposed. If implemented, many fees would be increased by 25% and some by over 700%! And some wholly new fees are proposed. The Executive Summary should be consulted for more details because of the sweeping extent of the proposed fee schedule changes.
For example, the USPTO has proposed tiered fees for continuing applications (with large fees required if a continuing application is filed more than three or seven years after earliest parent’s filing date), new fees if the number of citations submitted with information disclosure statements (IDSs) exceed tiered thresholds, higher excess claim fees, more steeply increasing subsequent request for continued examination (RCE) fees, new fees for After-Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) 2.0 requests, reinstating and increasing fees for assignment recordations submitted electronically, and enormous increases in design application fees. The design application fee increases are being driven by the prevalence of mostly foreign applicants filing expedited examination requests as micro entities, which has created a large backlog of non-expedited design applications.
While the USPTO currently has fee-setting authority “only to recover the aggregate estimated costs to the Office,” many of the proposals would appear to exceed that authority to try to shift or discourage certain actions by applicants.
At present, the USPTO has not made further announcements in response to comments about its patent fee proposals. Some changes to the initial proposals are certainly possible. But extremely large official patent fee increases are likely by January 2025. More official information should be available sometime in the first quarter of 2024.
Design patent 1 million issued and design patent bar created
In 2023 the USPTO issued design patent 1,000,000. Also, the USPTO authorized a design patent-specific bar for practitioners without scientific or engineering backgrounds to prosecute design cases. This new design patent bar does not restrict the ability of other patent practitioners to handle design applications. Regular patent practitioners with scientific or engineering backgrounds are still able to handle any and all types of patent applications, for utility, design, or plant matters. But practitioners admitted to the new design patent bar will not be able to handle utility or plant patent applications. Other developments in the courts related to design patent practice are discussed below.
Suggested figure for publication policy changed
Applicants were previously able to suggest a figure to appear on the front page of a pre-grant publication of a patent application, but the USPTO independently decided which figure to publish on the front page and sometimes chose a different one. That policy has changed. The USPTO now exclusively uses the drawing figure suggested by the applicant for the front page of the pre-grant publication when that suggestion is included on a compliant application data sheet (ADS) that is timely filed before the USPTO begins its process of publishing the application. Despite this change, it is still common (and often recommended) for applicants to allow the USPTO to select a figure for publication on the front page and not suggest one.
Changes to USPTO online systems
On November 15, 2023, the USPTO permanently retired its PAIR and EFS-Web systems. This leaves only the USPTO’s Patent Center for making electronic filings and retrieving file histories. Although the USPTO has said that Patent Center provides all the functionality of the retired systems, that is not accurate. For instance, without any formal announcement, the USPTO deactivated its First Office Action Estimator tool. In truth, that estimator tool had ceased to be accurate for some time. But applicants are now left with no mechanism to estimate the time until substantive examination begins. Patent Center has reduced functionality in numerous areas and practitioners have found it to be prone to bugs and usability problems, including a lack of capacity.
The USPTO has also announced a plan to “reform” the Electronic Trademark Assignment System (ETAS) and the Electronic Patent Assignment System (EPAS) into one cohesive and modernized system called the Intellectual Property Assignment System (IPAS). IPAS is slated to be available starting January 15, 2024 [UPDATE: the transition date was pushed back to February 5, 2024]. No further details are available at this time, so it is unclear how the new assignment system will differ or what the apparently integrated patent and trademark recordation interface will look like.
More U.S. patent filing information
Please also see the Guide to Foreign Priority Patent Filings in the USA for in-depth discussion of requirements for foreign applicants to file U.S. counterpart patent applications with a foreign priority claim. Additional basic information about patenting can be found in the Patent Basics guide.
Trademarks
Fee increases proposed
In May of 2023, the USPTO announced plans for official trademark fee increases. Materials related to those efforts can be found here, including an Executive Summary of the key official trademark fee increases proposed. If implemented, the naming convention and types of fees would change. For example, a typical trademark application would see at least a $100 fee increase. And, if custom identifications of goods/services are used rather than merely selecting ones from pre-approved descriptions from the Trademark ID Manual, then new “premium” surcharges of $200 per class would apply. This means that many (if not most) new trademark applications will see official filing fees increase by at least $300, and possibly more if there are multiple classes of goods/services. Somewhat similar fee structure changes and official fee increases would apply to Madrid Protocol extensions to the USA too. Various other fees will increase 10-66% or more, including a 400% increase in the fee for a letter of protest, for example.
At present, the USPTO has not made further announcements in response to comments about its trademark fee proposals. Some changes to the proposals might be made, but significant official increases are a certainty. More information should be available from the USPTO in the first quarter of 2024, and the new fees are expected to go into effect by November 2024.
New trademark search and assignment recordation tools
The USPTO retired its Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) on November 20, 2023. A new Trademark Search tool has been made available in its place. The new tool has a more modern-looking interface. It still includes search functionality similar to that of TESS, but no longer times out during searches. Also, it offers the ability to export search results and other information as a spreadsheet. However, the USPTO has warned that the new Trademark Search system will sometimes display outdated status information, drawn from a Trademark Reporting And Monitoring (TRAM) system that the USPTO plans to retire sometime in 2024. The most accurate trademark status information can be found instead in the USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, which is linked in individual search results. Training materials on how to use the new Trademark Search tool are available.
As noted above regarding patent developments, a new trademark (and patent) assignment recordation system called the Intellectual Property Assignment System (IPAS) is slated to become available starting January 15, 2024 [UPDATE: the transition date was pushed back to February 5, 2024].
More U.S. trademark filing information
Please also see the Guide to Trademark Registration in the USA for in-depth discussion of requirements for foreign applicants to file U.S. federal trademark applications. Additional basic information about trademarks can be found in the Trademark Basics guide.
Copyrights
AI-generated works usually not copyrightable
The U.S. Copyright Office requires that works be authored by a human to be copyrightable. In the generative AI context, authorship requirements begin by asking whether the work is basically one of human authorship, with the computer/AI merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by a human but by a machine. The Copyright Office takes the view that when an AI tool solely receives a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, such prompts function like instructions to a commissioned artist and the person making the prompts is not considered an author. Accordingly, in that situation the resultant AI-generated work is not protectable by copyright. On the other hand, if AI-generated elements are further selected and arranged by a human, those aspects may be protectable, with the non-copyrightable AI-generated elements disclaimed.
In copyright registration applications, applicants have a duty to disclose the inclusion of AI-generated content and to provide a brief explanation of the human author’s contributions to the work. Given the interest in this area, the Copyright Office has an ongoing initiative and inquiry. Applicable policies and legal standards may continue to evolve.
Significant Developments in U.S. Courts
Patent enablement requirements reinforced
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Amgen v. Sanofi that “[i]f a patent claims an entire class of processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, the patent’s specification must enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the entire class. In other words, the specification must enable the full scope of the invention as defined by its claims. The more one claims, the more one must enable.” This important decision reaffirmed a principle set out in cases going back more than a century, which preclude the grant of a patent monopoly extending beyond the invention actually disclosed. In this way, a central underlying premise of modern patent law was confirmed, that of a quid pro quo or “bargain” between the inventor(s) disclosing the invention and the public granting a limited monopoly in exchange. The Court discussed famous historic cases, including those involving Samuel Morse and Thomas Edison, as setting out the same enablement requirements.
In the Amgen case, in particular, the central issue revolved around the use of functional claim language that encompassed an entire genus of embodiments of antibodies coupled with the disclosure of inadequate teachings and embodiments pertaining to only a subset of species within that genus. The patentee Amgen had disclosed only a few (26) working examples plus a roadmap for a trial-and-error process that would have involved undue, “painstaking” experimentation to arrive at the entire claimed genus (encompassing at least millions of candidates). This was found inadequate and so the invalidation of the relevant claims for lack of enablement (under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)) was affirmed.
A specification may call for a reasonable amount of experimentation to make and use a patented invention. Often that can be done by disclosing a general quality or general rule that may reliably enable a person skilled in the art to make and use all of what is claimed (and not merely a subset). But what is reasonable in any case will depend on the nature of the invention and the underlying art. Although not explicitly discussed in the Amgen case, courts have long recognized a distinction between so-called “predictable” arts like those involving mechanical and/or electrical inventions and “unpredictable” arts like those involving chemical and biotech inventions, as well as the amount of knowledge in the state of the art available to a person of ordinary skill. The more predictable the art, and the more knowledge a person of ordinary skill in the art would have, the less disclosure is required for enablement. Although even in the “predictable” arts enablement issues can arise, especially where “preemptive” functional or result-only claim language is used.
[Edit: in January 2024, the USPTO released guidance regarding the enablement requirement for utility patent applications in view of Amgen v. Sanofi. Existing USPTO practice of following the so-called Wands factors were essentially reaffirmed.]
Treatment of design patents continues to change
U.S. design patent practice has seen a number of significant shifts and important court decisions in recent years. Notably, there is currently a case called LKQ Corp v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC pending rehearing that will clarify obviousness standards for designs, and how that standard is the same or different from obviousness for utility patents. At stake is whether design patents will be treated uniquely, with essentially a lower threshold for patentability (currently, obviousness is more difficult to establish for designs), or subject to basically the same non-obviousness standard as for utility patents.
Another controversial decision in the Columbia II case limited the use of “comparison” prior art in infringement analysis to highlight similarities or differences between the patented design and the accused product that might not otherwise be apparent to an ordinary observer. That case built upon recent emphasis on the title of design patents being limiting, and expanded on a prior case (In re Surgisil) that said only prior art pertaining to the same type of article claimed can be used for patentability analysis, even though priorprecedentialcases had said that considerations about use of an article are immaterial. The main takeaway is that the law around design patents continues to shift, and at least some judges have attempted to expand or strengthen design patentees’ power in ways that seem to depart from binding precedent.
District of Delaware holds patent case plaintiffs accountable
Chief District Judge Colm Connolly of the District of Delaware has implemented a standing order requiring disclosure of third-party litigation funding. This policy differs from some other districts (and other judges) that refuse to require such disclosures, even in response to discovery requests. These disclosure requirements help to identify real parties in interest to allow for recusal of the judge if a conflict of interest arises due to the judge having an ownership interest in the litigation funder.
In a set of patent cases brought by non-practicing entities believed to be connected to a common litigation funder, Chief Judge Connolly has issued sanctions and referred attorneys and a party to criminal prosecutors and state bars responsible for attorney licensing. These stem from allegations that the litigation funder is directing the litigation and attorneys are taking instructions from entities other than the named party in the lawsuit, which may constituent the unauthorized practice of law and/or a breach of attorney ethical obligations.
In at least one other case, these policies have also led to dismissal where litigation funder confidentiality agreements have precluded compliance with the Chief Judge’s funding disclosure requirements.
The significance of these probes and disclosure requirements is that these patent lawsuits are generally brought by corporate entities formed only for the purpose of bringing a patent lawsuit, and which have essentially no assets. The lack of assets by a shell company is used by litigation funders to try to shield themselves from liability for possible sanctions and attorney fee awards for bringing meritless or objectively baseless lawsuits. Occasionally, similar cases have involved accusations of sham assignments, which can impact the standing of the plaintiff to bring suit if ownership rights are illusory. These policies also bolster and supplement corporate disclosure requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, which on its face does not address things like contractual obligations that can curb settlement power or incentives, or when an entity has the power to control another through “negative control” or economic dependence standards applied by the U.S. Small business Administration to determine “affiliate” status and in turn to determine USPTO entity size status.
More generally, Chief Judge Connoly’s policies present some long-overdue limits on the use of courts to extract nuisance settlements, a problem that has been well-documented with respect to so-called “patent trolls”.
Prosecution laches
Certain cases have continued to apply so-called “prosecution laches” to render patents unenforceable. Prosecution laches is premised on prejudice to an accused infringer by the patentee’s unreasonable and inexcusable delay in prosecution of the asserted patent. Cases that apply this doctrine typically involve continuing applications. Recently, this doctrine has been applied in prominent cases by independent inventor patentees. These cases merit attention for a number of reasons. The criticized “egregious misuse” of the patent system is not something confined to a few isolated instances, but is rather commonplace. For instance, similar conduct in creating patent thickets with multiple continuation applications is routine in medical device patenting. And it is not uncommon for patentees to write claims in continuing applications to cover competitor products. Most significantly, the application of a laches defense is in tension with the Supreme Court’s 2017 SCA Hygienedecision saying that laches cannot be invoked as a defense against a claim for damages brought within the six-year limitations period of 35 U.S.C. § 286. The crucial issue is whether (or when) a judge-made policy can preclude use of statutory provisions allowing continuing applications. Also notable is reliance on unenforceability rather than, for instance, invalidity based on lack of enablement—many continuing applications of the sort that raise these questions would seem to be vulnerable to allegations of lack of enablement in the original disclosure, which is a statutory requirement.
Double patenting and patent term adjustment
In the In re Cellect case, the Federal Circuit held that patent term adjustment that differeed among patents in a family led to invalidity for obviousness-type double patenting, because the patents did not expire on the same date. This case is notable because it held that the judicially-created doctrine of double patenting led to unpatentability as a result of USPTO delay, despite the fact that this stemmed from a statutory provision (35 U.S.C. § 154) granting patent term adjustment. In other words, it presents a significant judicial/legislative separation of powers issue. On the other hand, double patenting concerns only arise when a patentee chooses to file multiple patent applications with overlapping scope.
Normally, double patenting can be overcome by filing a terminal disclaimer. But the In re Cellect case presented an unusual situation. It involved a reexamination of an already-expired patent, and terminal disclaimers are not permitted for expired patents. However, the decision in that case still established that a patent can be invalidated or found unpatentable as a result of USPTO delay, thus requiring terminal disclaimers in more situations than was generally believed necessary previously.
Copyright mandatory deposits found unconstitutional
The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled in the Valancourt Books v. Garland case that the mandatory deposit requirement of the copyright laws (17 U.S.C. § 407) is unconstitutional under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Mandatory deposits provided copies of works for archiving by the Library of Congress. Although some form of mandatory deposit requirement has been in place since the first copyright law was passed in 1790. But the D.C. Circuit ruled that subsequent amendments to the copyright laws had left mandatory deposits “untethered” from the benefits of copyright registration, rendering them a government taking without compensation prohibited by the Constitution. Penalties for failing to make a mandatory deposit will no longer apply.
Fair use eviscerated by Supreme Court
In a pair of rather shocking decisions (Jack Daniel’s and Andy Warhol Foundation), the U.S. Supreme Court has greatly limited “fair use” defenses with respect to both trademarks and copyrights. These decisions greatly reduce freedom to operate based on parody or artistic transformation defenses that were largely taken for granted for a long time under U.S. law, and reflect unconvincing treatment, if not outright disregard, for both fact and law. A return to prior treatment of fair use will apparently require legislative action, which is not likely in the near future.
Role of fraud in trademark matters
In the Great Concepts v. Chutter decision, the Federal Circuit held that fraud in a declaration of incontestability (under § 15 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1065) cannot be used as a ground to cancel a trademark registration. This creates a split with the Ninth Circuit’s prior 1990 decision in Robi v. Five Platters, which held that a statement of incontestability that fraudulently asserted that there were no adverse decisions involving the registered mark justified cancellation. This means that this particular ground for challenging a registration will only be available in courts and not in Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) administrative cancellation proceedings.
Significantly, the Federal Circuit did not reach a major point from the appealed TTAB Great Concepts decision holding that recklessness was sufficient to establish fraud. The Federal Circuit has generally taken an idiosyncratic view of fraud, and numerous past decisions (not limited to trademark law) have made it difficult to prove fraud—despite (or rather because of) the prevalence of accusations and circumstantial evidence of fraud. This issue is also loosely tied to the contentious Iqbal/Twombly “plausibility” pleading standards, which altered longstanding notice pleading requirements, and which research has shown allows judges to limit access to the courts (and associated evidentiary discovery) for certain types of claims for ideological reasons.
Crisis of legitimacy in judiciary continues
U.S. Supreme Court justices have been mired in ethicsscandals and public confidence in the Court remains at or near record lows. These scandals have revolved around essentially influence/bribery concerns and deficient disclosure of income and “gifts” that call into question judicial impartiality. There was a recent introduction of a code of conduct formulated by the Supreme Court justices themselves with no clear enforcement mechanism—with the justices apparently taking the position that they have already been compliant with the new code of conduct, as an attempt to deflect the serious charges leveled against them rather than meaningfully address them. The judiciary’s self-policing has been criticized in general.
Specifically in the IP field, on September 20, 2023 Judge Pauline Newman was suspended for one year from the Federal Circuit, the court with exclusive appellate jurisdiction over patent lawsuits. At 96 years old, she is the oldest current serving U.S. federal judge, appointed by President Regan in 1984. Her suspension resulted from her refusal to cooperate with an investigation into her fitness due to health issues and her treatment of court staff. As of December 2023, she has still refused to either retire or cooperate with the official investigation, a course of conduct that has reflected poorly on her and, more broadly, has tarnished the reputation of the judiciary as a whole. Judge Newman continues to challenge her suspension and the investigation as a whole—on “libertarian” grounds that deny government authority and therefore sit uncomfortably with her role as a federal judge.
Additionally, an employment-related complaint by an administrative patent judge (APJ) at the USPTO for abuse of authority was initially sustained in May of 2023. The APJ had reported interference with Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) judge assignments through “panel stacking” in order to alter case outcomes (in a separate Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] case, the USPTO refused to disclose how often this occurred). Supervisors then retaliated against him. This matter points to more general transparency and credibility problems and a lack of independence of administrative judges (within the executive branch). It follows a 2022 Government Accountability Office report finding that a majority (67%) of APJs felt pressured by management to alter specific decisions in AIA proceedings and a smaller but still significant number (34%) felt similar pressure in ex parte appeals. It further follows the Supreme Court’s 2021 Arthrex decision, which held that APJ appointments violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution but that such deficiencies were resolved by allowing PTAB decisions to be reviewed by the Director of the USPTO—essentially undermining APJ independence and objectivity in favor of protecting the political aspects of appointment authority. These issues also recall concerns about secret USPTO actions during application examination placing public relations / perception management concerns ahead of objective patentability requirements established by the legislature.
To foreign observers, the crisis of legitimacy in the U.S. judiciary might seem to merely extend a legitimacy problem with U.S. government action both domestic and worldwide, including investigations/proceedings against presidents past and present and conduct before bodies like the United Nations.
December 2023
Austen Zuege is an attorney at law and registered U.S. patent attorney in Minneapolis whose practice encompasses patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain name cybersquatting, IP agreements and licensing, freedom-to-operate studies, client counseling, and IP litigation. If you have patent, trademark, or other IP issues, he can help.
Patents have a maximum term and cannot be renewed. This is part of the quid pro quo underlying modern patent law. The patentee gets exclusive rights for a limited time but then the technology disclosed in expired patents can be freely used by the public (in at least the jurisdiction that issued the patent). Knowing how to calculate patent term is therefore important in order to determine when a given patent has expired. But, for better or worse, the term of any given patent can vary. There is no single fixed term for all U.S. patents. And the applicable term is not always apparent on the face of a given patent. So how is patent term calculated for U.S. patents?
USPTO Patent Term Calculator
One of the simplest and most practical ways to determine the term of a given U.S. patent is to utilize a patent term calculator provided by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). Using this downloadable spreadsheet requires inputting certain information about a given patent. Only some of the necessary information appears printed on a granted patent. Other information must be researched in USPTO records, mainly through Patent Center.
The advantage of the USPTO’s patent term calculator is that it can be used by anyone, even people who do not understand the applicable patent laws. However, it still requires ascertaining the correct information to enter in the spreadsheet. That requires knowing where to find such information. The patent term calculator also requires a level of confidence that the correct information is being entered. That is, it still requires knowing some of the terminology so that correct, relevant information is entered.
Read on for more information about the sorts of information relevant to proper patent term calculations.
Relevant Factors
What follows is a more detailed explanation of factors that determine the enforceable term of a given patent. These factors include factors that influence how to calculate a given patent’s term, as well as things that might cut short the enforceable term of a given patent. In any given instance, consulting with a knowledgeable patent attorney is recommend to determine the correct term of any given U.S. patent.
Type of Patent
Paten term first of all depends on the type of patent involved.
U.S. utility and plant patents have a basic term of 20 years from the relevant filing date (35 U.S.C. § 154)—there being some nuance about which filing date is used here.
Timeline Showing Basic Patent Term for U.S. Utility and Plant Patents (Including PCT National Phase Entries)
A priority claim to a foreign patent application (stemming from the Paris Convention or a PCT application that did not designate the USA) or to a prior U.S. provisional patent application does not count against the term (35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(3)). This means a foreign priority or prior provisional filing can effectively extend patent term.
Timeline Showing Basic Patent Term for U.S. Utility and Plant Patents Based on a Prior U.S. Provisional or Foreign Priority Application
For regular PCT national phase entries to the USA, the PCT international filing date is used for term calculation (not the date of later U.S. national phase entry). That is, a PCT international application designating the United States is treated as a U.S. application (see 35 U.S.C. §§ 372 and 375), with the national phase being just a different phase of the same application. So an ordinary national phase entry into the United States does not, by itself, involve a “priority” claim–although there may additionally be a priority claim involved.
The so-called domestic benefit of a prior U.S. non-provisional application (that is, for a continuation, continuation-in-part, or divisional application under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), including PCT “bypass” applications) does count against patent term, so the term calculation should be based on the earliest such prior filing date. In other words, continuing applications that have priority/domestic benefit of a prior U.S. non-provisional application will have a reduced patent term. The related U.S. application data field (INID code 63) on the face of a patent, if present, can indicate an earlier filing date that may impact term.
Timeline Showing Basic Patent Term for Continuing U.S. Utility and Plant Patents Based on a Prior Domestic U.S. Application (Including PCT “Bypass” Applications)
Example of INID code 63 “Related U.S. Application Data” field on front page of U.S. Pat. No. 11,102,682, showing earliest filing date for patent term calculation of a continuing application
In contrast, U.S. design patents currently have a fixed basic term of 15-years from the date of grant (35 U.S.C. § 173). The filing date issues referenced above do not impact design patent term. This means that continuing design patents can potentially have later expiration dates, unlike with utility and plant patents.
Timeline Showing Basic Patent Term for U.S. Design Patents
Reissue patents are possible “for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent.” (35 U.S.C. § 251). This means that a reissue patent’s term is no longer than the term of the original patent, as subject to any extension or adjustment. It is possible that a reissue patent’s term could be shorter than that of the original patent (see discussion of terminal disclaimers below). But reissue does not lengthen patent term.
Filing Date and Changes in the Law
The laws around patent term have changed over time. Some patents applied for or granted prior to those changes in the law may be subject to a different term.
U.S. utility and plant patents applications filed before June 8, 1995 can have a term of 17 years from the date or grant rather than from the earliest applicable filing date. Any patent that was in force on June 8, 1995 will have a term that is the greater of the 20-year term as discussed above or 17 years from grant (35 U.S.C. § 154(c)).
For U.S. design patents, those issued from design applications filed before May 13, 2015 have a 14-year term from the date of grant (rather than 15-years from grant).
Of course, there may be future changes in the law that affect patent term calculations. And courts may issue decisions that affect the interpretation of laws that impact patent term calculations.
Patent Term Adjustment
Certain delays in examination can lead to an adjustment of patent term for a given original patent (but not for a reissue). This is called patent term adjustment (PTA) under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b). Normally, this PTA is calculated as the number of days beyond the basic 20-year term that the patent can remain in force. The PTA period normally appears on the face of each granted patent—typically in a “Notice” field denoted with an asterisk (*). The USPTO’s Patent Center portal also has a menu tab showing detailed PTA calculations for a given patent. However, it is possible for a patentee to challenge the USPTO’s PTA calculation in some circumstances, meaning the PTA period might be corrected later. PTA does not apply to design patents.
Example of PTA notice on front page of U.S. Pat. No. 10,000,000, showing 430 days of additional patent term
Patent Term Extension
Patentees can potentially obtain patent term extension (PTE) under 35 U.S.C. § 156 based upon premarket regulatory review of certain human drugs, food or color additives, medical devices, animal drugs, and veterinary biological products. This restores some term lost while awaiting premarket government approval from a regulatory agency. An application for PTE must be submitted within sixty (60) days of when permission for commercial marketing or use occurred. Patentees have to affirmatively apply for PTE, which is not automatically granted. Also, PTE is only possible for patents on certain types of subject matter; it does not apply to design or plant patents. § 156 PTE is not indicated on granted patents and must be researched in USPTO records, mainly through Patent Center.
Disclaimers
A given patent may be subject to a disclaimer (35 U.S.C. § 253). The two types of disclaimers are a terminal disclaimer or a statutory disclaimer.
In a terminal disclaimer, the patentee disclaims or dedicates to the public a portion of the term of a given patent. That is, the term of the patent is shortened from what it might otherwise be. Terminal disclaimers are frequently used to overcome double patenting, by disclaiming the period of patent term (if any) that would extend beyond that of one or more other patents. They are also used when design patent applications are revived after abandonment, disclaiming a period of patent term equal to the period of abandonment. Terminal disclaimers do not affect § 156 PTE, however.
Example of terminal disclaimer notice on front page of U.S. Pat. No. 11,102,682
Excerpt from example terminal disclaimer filed against U.S. Pat. No. 11,102,682, disclaiming term beyond that of U.S. Pat. No. 10,667,181
The USPTO has sometimes, but not always, printed an indication that a given patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer on the front page of the patent. Terminal disclaimers can also arise after a patent has been granted. In any event, the duration (and possibly also the existence) of a terminal disclaimer must be researched in the prosecution history of the relevant patent in USPTO records. This can generally be done using the online Patent Center portal and viewing the “Documents & Transactions”. Although the calculation of the disclaimed period may require additional research and analysis. For instance, it may be necessary to calculate the term of one or more other patents or the period of applicant delay for a design patent.
For statutory disclaimers, one or more claims of a patent are effectively surrendered. This means that some claims may no longer be in force, even though other claims might.
Lapse or Expiration for Non-Payment of Maintenance Fees
In order to keep a given U.S. utility patent in force, periodic maintenance fees are required (35 U.S.C. § 41(b)). These are due by four, eight, and twelve years from the grant of the patent. However, there are no maintenance fees required for U.S. design patents or plant patents (37 C.F.R. § 1.362(b)).
If a maintenance fee is not paid on time, then the patent will lapse or expire. This means that a given utility patent might no longer be in force even though it has not yet reached its maximum possible term.
What makes lapses/expirations complicated is that the patentee may be able to reinstate (that is, revive) the patent if a maintenance fee payment deadline was missed unintentionally. This may give rise to intervening rights (35 U.S.C. § 41(c)(2)). So, significantly, the expiration or lapse of the U.S. patent due to a missed maintenance fee may not mean the final and absolute end of rights in that patent if late payment is accepted.
Terminology describing this lapses/expiration for non-payment of maintenance fees hasvaried. The USPTO currently tends to use “expiration” but “lapse” is a better term because it differentiates situations where revival is possible from those in which a patent’s term has expired permanently because it has reached its maximum limit.
Invalidation and Cancellation
Patents can be invalidated by courts or cancelled by the USPTO, usually as the result of a challenge by another entity. This can affect all or merely some claims of a patent. Such an adverse ruling (after exhaustion of all rights of appeal) can end or limit rights in the patent short of its maximum possible term. It is necessary to research the existence and status of such an adverse ruling, if any.
Withdrawn Patents
Lastly, some patent numbers have been withdrawn by the USPTO. These were essentially never really patents in the first place, for various reasons, and thus have no term. Although, to complicate matters, the USPTO has also reinstated some previously withdrawn patents.
Laws Vary by Jurisdiction
The discussion above pertains only to U.S. patents. In other countries, laws may differ regarding the calculation of patent term, the availability of supplementary protection certificates, and so on.
Austen Zuege is an attorney at law and registered U.S. patent attorney in Minneapolis whose practice encompasses patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain name cybersquatting, IP agreements and licensing, freedom-to-operate studies, client counseling, and IP litigation. If you have patent, trademark, or other IP issues, he can help.
Preparing new patent applications can be complicated. Patent applications in the U.S. and most other countries undergo pre-grant examination. So a patent application must be sufficient to establish patentability to the satisfaction of a patent examiner. And if the goal is to create enforceable exclusive legal rights in an invention, and it usually is, then there are many legal considerations that impact coverage and validity. In sum, while there are challenges to obtaining any patent at all, not all granted patents are equal.
What follows is a discussion of some of the most common mistakes when drafting a utility patent application. These are the sorts of mistakes frequently made by inventors preparing and filing an application themselves (pro se) without the aid of a patent attorney. These issues can also arise when applications prepared in another jurisdiction enters the USA and there are differences in the law and practices in the two jurisdictions.
A discussion of common mistakes in design patent applications is available elsewhere.
Focusing on the Old Rather than the New
One common mistake, especially with applications self-prepared by inventors, is to focus on the prior art and what is old and already known rather than on the new invention. Put another way, the mistake is to devote excessive effort to describing what the invention is not rather than what it is. While it is permitted to discuss the background of the invention, and sometimes this is helpful to highlight what is new and different about the invention, this provides little benefit when it takes up too large a proportion of an application.
As an example, criticizing existing products for being “too slow” and stating that it is desired to have an improved product that works faster might be helpful for context. But unless the application further explains how better results and faster speeds are achieved, such a discussion of the background context has fairly limited value. Also, if the discussion of what was known is far more detailed than the discussion of what is supposedly new, this can have the undesired effect of suggesting that the inventors have yet to adequately develop the invention to a point of being patentable.
Omitting How It Works, or “Black Box” Gaps
A big mistake is failing to describe what the new invention is and how it works in sufficient detail. Often this means describing what is new too superficially so that it is no more than a plan for future invention or a mere statement of a problem to be solved or a desired result. Modern patent laws a premised on a quid pro quo: in exchange for disclosing how to make and use an invention, exclusive rights are granted for a limited time. But you cannot get exclusive patent rights by withholding the “secret” of how to make and use the invention.
Occasionally, this problem arises by placing important aspects of the invention in a “black box”. If key steps, ingredients, or structures are withheld from the disclosure contained in a patent application, then the patentability requirement of enablement (35 U.S.C. § 112(a)) is not met.
Stated more generally, it is necessary to provide a disclosure that enables someone of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the full scope of the invention as defined by the claims. The more one claims, the more one must enable. So a more limited disclosure might only support more limited claims. Sometimes this is a genus/species issue — a question of the sufficiency of disclosure of particular species to claim an entire genus. It is therefore necessary to have claims that are commensurate with the scope of the disclosure and not overbroad, or, from another perspective, to have a disclosure that is robust enough to support the desired claim scope.
One helpful thing (good) patent attorneys do is that they explain how inventions work in a understandable way. The technology may still be complicated. So the explanatory disclosure might not be entirely “easy” to read and understand. But inventors are sometimes able to devise working inventions without being able to translate that technology into words and drawings of the sort required for patent applications. It may be because they take some things for granted, or sometimes they might not even fully grasp what is different about their new invention from what was known before.
Lastly, there is still a requirement that the “best mode” of practicing an invention be disclosed. Applicants and inventors cannot disclose only what they know to be their second-best embodiment, while retaining the best for themselves.
Confusing Ambiguity with Breadth
While a broad claim is not necessarily ambiguous merely due to breadth, the reverse is problematic. Ambiguity does not lead to a broad scope of protection in a patent. This is a issue even experienced patent attorneys wrestle with and sometimes get wrong. By far, the most common source of trouble is the use of functional language or results-based claiming to try to obtain preemptive exclusive rights over significantly more than what was actually invented. This is one of the trickiest and most contested aspects of patent law and policy, so any brief discussion is hardly comprehensive.
Patent law looks to what is generally understood by given language. Using coined terminology and nonce words — often with vaguely functional connotations — without providing a sufficiently clear definition sometimes leads to impermissible ambiguity. Generic structural terminology as understood in a given technological field is often not the same thing as coined terminology not adopted into use generally in that field. For instance, the coined word “parkulator” does not convey any accepted structural meaning sufficient to use that term in patent claims (without a sufficient express definition). All too often, patent language is specifically drafted to avoid the use of generally-understood terms, which invites ambiguity problems. But you cannot benefit from avoiding accepted meanings if others cannot reasonably determine the scope of a claim due to intentional ambiguities.
There are many other examples as well, sometimes the result of errors and inconsistencies. For instance, if a claimed inventions rests on a parameter like an angle between two things, or a specific concentration of an ingredient or chemical element, or performing a process at a particular pressure, then it may be important to explain — consistently — how such parameters are measured or evaluated. The percentage of a material by weight or by volume might be quite different depending on the density of all the materials involved. Or the pressure might be measure in relative or absolute terms. And the location or direction in which an angle is measured might matter. Similar issues can arise through poor English translations too, which are treated as intentional choices. So translating a non-English word as a “spoon-digger” rather than a “backhoe” can be problematic.
Not Understanding Terms with Special Legal Meaning
There is a concept, sometimes referred to as the Dunning-Kruger Effect, that those who are incompetent in a given area tend to be ignorant of their own incompetence. In patent law, certain language has special legal significance. Rather than being given their ordinary, everyday meaning, certain words in certain contexts can be legal “terms of art” that have a special meaning. The paradox is that unless these special meanings in patent law are known, they might be inadvertently or unintentionally invoked.
Perhaps the most frequent errors of this sort arises with means-plus function claiming (35 U.S.C. § 112(f)). Under this format, an element of apparatus is claimed as “means for…[performing a stated function]” or “[functional descriptor] means for…[performing a stated function].” This type of claiming is currently permitted in the U.S. but is given a special interpretation: it literally covers only the disclosed corresponding structure, material, or acts, plus their known equivalents. Such an interpretation might be narrower than intended. It also might raise other problems if the corresponding structure is not clearly identified and disclosed.
Even patent attorneys can struggle with means-plus-function claiming. Courts have (somewhat controversially) said that if a claim limitation is drafted in the same format as a means-plus-function limitation and merely replaces the term “means” with a nonce word or generic placeholder like “module”, “mechanism”, “element”, or “device”, then a means-plus-function interpretation may still apply. Speaking in practical terms, claim limitations that rely too much on non-structural functional language might be interpreted as means-plus-function claiming.
Irrelevant Disclosure
Including a lot of unnecessary information just because it is available can be another problem. It wastes time and effort, and time is money when preparing patent applications. It can also obscure what is important and lead to longer (and more expensive) prosecution and examination after initial filing. Of course, knowing what sort of information is relevant and what is not is something that requires knowledge and experience. It can also be a matter of understanding the closest prior art, which is the next point.
Not Understanding the Closest Prior Art
Patentability largely depends on an invention being novel and nonobvious over what was already known. So, the catch is that to understand what is patentable it is unavoidably necessary to understand what is the closest prior art. Most of the time, that requires conducting a patentability search and analysis. However, applicants often wish to avoid the expense of a patentability search. This often leads to false economy, by requiring extensive post-filing efforts and expense to mitigate the problem of having not prepared a better initial application.
Knowing the closest prior allows a better patent application to be prepared — one that articulates what feature(s) of the invention differ from the closest prior art (and why that matters). For instance, a patentability search and analysis might suggest that additional technical information (another data table, figure, etc.) needs to be gathered for inclusion in a new application in order to sufficiently explain why the invention makes a patentable improvement. This may be the case where the prior art already achieves a similar result but in a different way, or where the prior art includes all the same parts but has them arranged or connected in a different way.
Austen Zuege is an attorney at law and registered U.S. patent attorney in Minneapolis whose practice encompasses patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain name cybersquatting, IP agreements and licensing, freedom-to-operate studies, client counseling, and IP litigation. If you have patent, trademark, or other IP issues, he can help.
There are certain requirements and interpretive frameworks that apply U.S. design patent applications that may not be intuitive. Many of these U.S. standards also differ significantly from the rules the apply to industrial design registrations in other countries. What follows is a guide to some common mistakes and misunderstandings around design patents and applications.
Additional information about acceptable practices for design patent applications can be found in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) design patent application guide and in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Chapter 1500.
“Engineering” Style Drawings Treated Unfavorably
Designers may create computer-aided drafting (CAD) drawings to document their designs. These often follow engineering conventions, including the use of “tangent” lines to show the boundaries of a curved surface. However, U.S. design patent practice relies on the use of surface shading lines or stippling . This is any entirely different style and approach than familiar engineering standards. But there is no single explicit rule or statute about the permitted format of shading lines in design patent drawings.
Shading lines or stippling that contrast with the rest of a drawing are used to show curves, tapers, and other three-dimensional (3D) contours in design patent drawings. The arrangement and variable spacing of straight shading lines is commonly used to indicate the character of curvature or contouring. Shading lines that are not straight may also be permissible. Surface shading lines can be broken/discontinuous and/or light/thin to differentiate them from lines indicating surface ornamentation and/or the ornamental shape of an article itself. Although they must be used sparingly, with as few in number as practicable.
Other characteristics can also be represented by shading lines. For instance, equally spaced shading lines arranged parallel to each other are used to indicate flat surfaces. Shading lines or stippling can be used to distinguish open areas (like holes) from solid material as well. Also, oblique line shading is used to show transparent, translucent, and highly polished or reflective surfaces, such as a mirror. Elements visible behind transparent/translucent surfaces should be shown in light, full lines rather than in broken lines.
The following is an example used in the USPTO’s design patent application guide to illustrate straight, parallel shading lines with their spacing using to show curved edges of a sink. These shading or contour lines are discontinuous, each having a long unbroken segment plus a short, dot-like segment slightly spaced from an end of the long segment. In this example, other discontinuous shading lines are used to illustrate flat surfaces too.
USPTO example of use of shading lines in design application drawings
The following example is also from the USPTO’s design patent application guide, and shows a wheel hub with a combination of shading lines and stippling. The shading lines indicate contouring/curvature and well as flat surfaces. Some of those shading lines are discontinuous while others are continuous but light lines. Contrast in materials or surface texture may be shown by using line shading in one area and stippling in another. In this example, the stippling can show matte surfaces in contrast with highly polished surfaces shown in line shading.
USPTO example of use of shading lines in design application drawings
The following is an example of non-linear (curved) shading lines used to illustrate 3D curvature of a vehicle mirror. These shading or contour lines are discontinuous to distinguish them. These types of shading lines are appropriate for illustrating more complex 3D shapes. In this example, broken (dashed) line(s) further illustrate the boundary of the claimed design, meaning that only a portion of the depicted article is part of this claimed design.
The following examples are drawn from a case about alleged infringement of two design patents covering a trash can and a recycling bin. Red arrows indicate lines whose meaning was disputed by the parties. The court construed the patents’ engineering-style drawings with curvature boundary tangent lines to mean visible ornamentation in the form of seams, paint, or something else that appears as actual lines on the trash can or recycling bin rather than merely conveying the boundaries of 3D contours where they transition to flat surfaces.
Annotated verisons of FIG. 1 of U.S. Pat. No. D644,807 for a “Slim Open Trash Can” (left) and FIG. 1 of U.S. Pat. No. D729,485 for a “Dual Recycler” (right) with red arrows and blue circles indicating disputed lines in Simplehuman LLC v. iTouchless Housewares and Prods., Inc., 506 F. Supp. 3d 830 (N.D. Cal. 2020)
The court reasoned that because the purported drafting technique in the examples above made it impossible to distinguish contour changes from ornamental lines, and because such ambiguous usage raises indefiniteness concerns that should be discouraged, a “plain meaning” interpretation was adopted, finding that the disputed lines are lines (that is, ornamental features in the form of seams, paint, or something else that appear as actual lines on the articles). The patentee’s arguments that the disputed lines were shading or contour lines merely meant to demonstrate the general shape of the trash can/recycling bin were rejected.
The case later settled, and was dismissed without a final ruling on infringement. But the patentee would undoubtedly have lost under the court’s construction that the disputed engineering-style lines meant visible ornamental lines — neither the patentee’s own products nor the accused products had any features that resembled visible lines in the relevant locations.
The Title is Limiting
U.S. design patents are directed to ornamental features of useful articles. Significantly, they cover only particular articles that embody the claimed design, and not simply a “view” or “look” in the abstract (as is the case for industrial designs in some other jurisdictions). The words of the claim — which always says “as shown and described” — will limit the scope of the exclusive patent legal rights. Courts have said that the title of a design patent is limiting, where it names a particular type of article. And that is the case even if the drawings of a design patent do not illustrate any particular article. So the title and other words in a design patent application should be chosen carefully.
In the example reproduced above, a figure from a design patent shows a “Y”-shaped, rattan wickerwork-style pattern formed by a web of material. None of the figures in the patent illustrated the design being applied to a particular article, only the pattern formed by a portion of material shown in isolation. But the title of the patent is “Pattern for a Chair”. A court ruled that the patent’s claim was limited to a pattern for a chair, as specified in the title, and a lawsuit against a seller of a basket (not a chair) with a similar pattern making up the basket/bin walls was dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim of design patent infringement.
Sole figure in App. Ser. No. No. 29/491,550 (now U.S. Pat. No. D979,060) for a “Lip Implant”
Image of prior art “stump” art tool considered in In re SurgiSil, L.L.P., 14 F.4th 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
Limits on claim scope by the title or other text might help distinguish prior art. In the example images above, a design patent claim for the “ornamental design for a lip implant” was limited to lip implants. A court said that a prior art tool made of tightly spiral-wound paper called a “stump”, used by artists for smoothing and blending large areas of pastel, charcoal, or pencil, was directed to a different article than the claimed lip implant. Therefore, the prior art “stump” did not affect the novelty of the claimed design even though their shapes were essentially the same. However, an older case held that if the prior art discloses any article of substantially the same appearance it is immaterial what its use was, so this lip implant decision is in tension with that precedent.
The title of a design application can also potentially limit the prior art available as “comparison” art in a later three-way comparison of the claimed design, an accused product, and the closest prior art for an infringement analysis. Such a comparison can highlight differences (or similarities) in the overall appearance that might not otherwise be apparent to an ordinary observer. To qualify as comparison prior art, a notable court decision said that the prior-art design must be applied to the article of manufacture identified in the claim of the asserted design patent.
Partial Claims Are Permitted
It is possible to depict an article while using a partial claim that addresses the design of only a portion of that article. Structure that is not part of the claimed design, but is considered necessary to show the environment in which the design is associated, may be represented in the drawing by broken lines. This includes any portion of an article in which the design is embodied, or applied to, that is not considered part of the claimed design. For instance, when the design is for surface ornamentation, the shape of article to which the design is applied can be shown in broken lines.
Moreover, unclaimed things may be shown in broken lines for the purpose of illustrating the environment in which the article embodying the design is used. For instance, a claimed design might be for the hood of a truck, only, with the rest of the truck shown in broken lines as unclaimed environment.
Unclaimed subject matter must be described as forming no part of the claimed design or of a specified embodiment thereof. A boundary line may be shown in broken lines if it is not intended to form part of the claimed design. Applicant may choose to define the bounds of a claimed design with broken lines when the boundary does not exist in reality in the article embodying the design. It would be understood that the claimed design extends to the boundary but does not include the boundary.Unclaimed subject matter must be described as forming no part of the claimed design or of a specified embodiment thereof. In this situation, broken (dashed) lines are used to define the boundary of a design patent application claim. This practice in the U.S. departs from that of some other countries where partial claims are not permitted.
Additionally, structure that is not part of the claimed design, but is considered necessary to show the environment in which the design is associated, may be represented in the drawing by broken lines. This includes any portion of an article in which the design is embodied, or applied to, that is not considered part of the claimed design.
USPTO Will Often Not Permit Changes in Claim Scope by Amendment
One controversial aspect of U.S. design practice is that changes in claim scope are usuallynot permitted. While partial claims are permitted in design applications, and while claim amendments in utility patent applications are routinely permitted (even to remove limitations), since 2013 the USPTO does not ordinarily permit lines to be changed from solid to broken (dashed) to broaden the claim, or the reverse to narrow the claim. Instead, applicants are often forced to file a separate application with a different claim scope. While examiners have some discretion to permit drawing changes, such as to fix discrepancies by changing lines to broken ones, and the text of disclaimers or statements in an appendix might have some impact, those things are not certain to be effective under current law and practice.
This practice of precluding changes in design application claim scope extends an already controversial position taken by a U.S. appeals court that reads a so-called “written description” possession requirement into the U.S. patent statutes (relating to enablement) against their plain language and grammar. Note that there is also a clear incentive for the USPTO to require new filings instead of amendments in order to generate more filing fees.
Multiple Embodiments are Sometimes Permitted
It is possible to include multiple embodiments in a single U.S. design application. However, restriction practice still applies and may require dividing different embodiments/designs into separate applications. Because design applications can have only a single claim, multiple embodiments must be patentably indistinct to remain in a single case.
On the one hand, because design patents have a 15-yearterm from grant, later-filed and later-granted divisional applications will expire later. This might be desirable for some patentees. On the other hand, a restriction determination also has an impact on the scope of exclusive rights. For instance, if the applicant elects one embodiment but declines to pursue an unelected embodiment in a divisional application, the unelected/abandoned embodiment will effectively be surrendered and dedicated to the public. These considerations emphasize the need to think through the implications and potentially commit to filing multiple applications when multiple distinct design embodiments are involved.
Drawings Must be Definite and Enabling
Drawings in a design patent application must be consistent with each other. Discrepancies between different views can create indefiniteness and/or lack of enablement issues. For instance, if certain features are shown in one view but omitted in another, this may make it unclear what design is really being claimed. The use of inconsistent drafting techniques in different drawings can also lead to similar concerns. For instance, discrepancies in the use of shading lines, stippling, and/or broken lines can detract from required clarity. Particularly for highly complex illustrations, it is important to carefully review the drawings to ensure that they are consistent.
A frequent issue is when there are holes, cavities, protrusions, or the like and their depth or height is potentially uncertain in plan or elevation views. Sometimes examiners may require cross-sectional views to show the depth of such features. But clarifying sectional views cannot always be added after initial filing without impermissibly adding new matter–instead a new continuation-in-part application might be necessary.
Mixing Photographs and Line Drawings is Not Permitted
Black and white line drawings are preferred and ordinarily required in U.S. design applications. However, photographs can sometimes be used, particularly where there is surface ornamentation that is not reproducible in line drawings. Such photographs can have added lines, such as broken lines to indicate a boundary of the claimed design. But it is not permitted to have both photographs and line drawings combined in a single design patent.
It is possible to include a mix of photographs and line drawings in a new U.S. design application, which might have significance for priority claims or divisional filings, but the drawings must be amended and limited to one or the other type before grant. If photographs are included as informal drawings in a new application, then a disclaimer included in the specification or on the photographs themselves should be used to disclaim any color, surface ornamentation, logos, written matter, etc. that forms no part of the claimed design.
Color Can Be Claimed
Use of color presents many opportunities for procedural problems and well as unintended impacts on the scope of claimed design patent rights. Color can be claimed in a design patent application. However, the use of color drawings (including color photographs) requires filing a petition and paying a petition fee to have color drawings accepted. Also, there is a requirement that the specification include the following statement:
“The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.”
Instead of using color drawings, an alternative is to use black & white line drawings lined for color in accordance with the drawing symbols in MPEP § 608.02 (and reproduced in the USPTO’s design patent application guide). Essentially there are particular line patterns usable to represent specific colors. If this is done, the application must state “The drawing is lined for color.” The specific colors lined in the drawing(s) may also be identified in the specification for clarity, as a kind of legend that explains the lining patterns from MPEP § 608.02.
Also, if color photographs are initially submitted as informal drawings (to later be replaced with formal drawings) and the applicant does not consider the color to be part of the claimed design, a disclaimer should be added to the specification as follows: “The color shown on the claimed design forms no part thereof.” The USPTO will consider color an integral part of the disclosed and claimed design in the absence of a disclaimer filed with the original application.
Appendices Are Permitted
Although not specifically discussed in MPEP Chapter 1550, the USPTO’s design patent application guide, or reported court cases, the USPTO currently permits design applications to include an appendix. The appendix is never published in granted design patents. An appendix can include text statements, such as a purported reservation of the right to change solid lines to broken lines or vice-versa, additional views or embodiments, which could be in the form of line drawings, photographs, or both. The main purpose of an appendix is to potentially provide support for a greater range of amendments and/or continuing applications after initial filing.
Applicants will sometimes not include an appendix because they are unaware that it is possible to do so. After all, the USPTO does not expressly discuss them in any of its regulations or procedural guidelines. Courts have not definitively ruled on the permissible use of design application appendices, however. Yet design examiners generally allow applicants to include and rely on them and generally do not object to their use.
Functional Aspects Are Not Protected
Sometimes design patent applicants wrongly believe that a design patent will cover functional aspects or a general idea. They do not. The type of subject matter that can be claimed in design patents is different from utility patents.
Design patent protection is limited to protection of ornamental aspects of a useful article. Purely functional aspects or a broader general design concept are not protected. Also, anything dictated by function, no matter how aesthetically pleasing, cannot be protected by a design patent. Where this becomes less clear is where design features are only partly functional, and they contribute at least some minimal ornamentation to the overall design. In those situations, the functional aspects limit the scope of protection in the overall design without completely precluding protection of the minimally ornamental aspects.
Austen Zuege is an attorney at law and registered U.S. patent attorney in Minneapolis whose practice encompasses patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain name cybersquatting, IP agreements and licensing, freedom-to-operate studies, client counseling, and IP litigation. If you have patent, trademark, or other IP issues, he can help.
An important first step in obtaining patents is to identify potentially protectable inventions. The process of gathering up candidate ideas that might be the basis for new patent applications is sometimes termed invention harvesting. But that is an informal term. It generally connotes affirmatively investigating research and development efforts to draw out aspects that might be patentable. The following discussion explains when this sort of effort is worthwhile and how to go about it.
Who Should Consider Invention Harvesting?
There are two basic requirements in terms of who should consider invention harvesting, plus an important practical consideration. The first basic requirement is some desire to pursue a patent. Only companies that might want to pursue patents need to consider invention harvesting. For instance, budget constraints or company policy might mean that patenting is unlikely. The second is activity that comes reasonably close to what is potentially patent-eligible and patentable. For instance, if there is absolutely no technological or engineering activity underway, efforts to identify inventions might not be worthwhile until circumstances change.
In practical terms, however, invention harvesting is typically a process that takes place within companies of a significant size. When there are multiple people or departments with different responsibilities, there is the possibility that inventive activity might be taking place somewhere that has not yet come to the attention of other people who make decisions about patenting. The basic idea is that “invention harvesting” is a proactive way to bring people or teams with different responsibilities together to help them meet shared or company-wide objectives. It rests on an understanding that simply expecting scientists and engineers to step forward when they believe they have an important invention may not capture all patentable inventions.
When Should Invention Harvesting Take Place?
Generally speaking, invention harvesting should be considered around the time that inventions are sufficiently developed to be “ready for patenting” but prior to any public disclosure or commercialization.
“Ready for patenting” means the invention is sufficiently developed that the inventor(s)—with the aid of a patent attorney—can describe how to make and use it. Vague goals and undeveloped business objectives are not enough if they amount to little more than a plan or hope to invent something in the future. The same goes for high-level business plans to meet some kind of customer demand without any definite ideas of how to achieve any specific results—those things are not sufficient. But anything that has been “reduced to practice” in the form of a working prototype is likely sufficiently developed, even if there still is ongoing testing and development work.
There can be public disclosure, public use, and on-sale bars to patenting. This makes it important to consider any potential inventions before any part of a new product is disclosed to someone else, from potential customers to potential business partners or even industry trade groups. This is true even though some countries, like the U.S., have patent filing grace periods.
Key product development stages or milestones, such as engineering “design reviews”, can be excellent times to proactively assess potentially patentable inventions. Also, any planned non-confidential disclosures or sales activities also make good prompts to consider patenting before those disclosures or sales activities take place. But there is no single right time to consider patenting. In fact, it may be a question that needs to be revisited over time.
What Should Invention Harvesting Activity Look For?
Of course, patentable invention might arise at different levels of generality and at different times during development. A product as a whole might not be patentable but specific features of it might be. Those narrower patentable aspects might not be identifiable at the outset of new product development and may only arise later on after considerable work has been completed. On the other hand, investment in research & development (R&D) is no guarantee that any patentable invention will arise. But the catch is that if you sometimes will miss patentable inventions unless you look for them. From that perspective, it is not a waste of effort to consider patentability even if nothing patentable is identified yet.
How Should Invention Harvesting be Conducted?
Some key foundations of invention harvesting are education, communication, and having resources in place to retain and act upon information gathered.
Education starts with emphasizing a desired to consider patenting. It also means cultivating, or bringing in by way of retaining an outside patent attorney, a reasonable awareness of patent law. Inventors might not have a good understanding of patent law and therefore may misunderstand what can (and cannot) be patented, for example. Education also means informing patent counsel about what kind of patenting strategy is desired from a business perspective. Some inventions might be more challenging than others to patent. There is an element here of establishing a comfort level with risk tolerance: do you want to aggressively pursue patent applications including ones that might not succeed, or take a more conservative approach and only file patent applications that seem to have a high probability of success?
Communication is about bringing the right people together to talk about potentially inventive activities. Sometimes, inventors may be very humble or shy and not willing to step forward and promote their own work. As another example, an invention may be patentable even if its inventor does not subjectively consider it to be “important”, such as where the inventor applies an idiosyncratic standard of “importance” that does not align with current laws around patentability. Sometimes having an explicit “invention harvesting” session with patent counsel is worthwhile, in which potential inventors talk about their ongoing work in an open-ended way to try to tease out potentially patentable inventions.
Resources like having a plan to document inventions and giving people or committees responsibility to approve patenting are really the lase piece of the puzzle. Having some sort of “invention disclosure” form to document potential inventions in writing is worthwhile. Such a form can not only provide a written record of the substance of a potential invention, it can also collect supporting information. Such supporting information can include the names of the potential inventor(s), any planned commercial release or public disclosure date(s), relationships between the invention and business initiatives, and other information that can be useful when making patent filing decisions and reporting on company activities.
Austen Zuege is an attorney at law and registered U.S. patent attorney in Minneapolis whose practice encompasses patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain name cybersquatting, IP agreements and licensing, freedom-to-operate studies, client counseling, and IP litigation. If you have patent, trademark, or other IP issues, he can help.
A file wrapper, synonymously called a file history, is the written record associated with a given patent or trademark application and any resultant granted patent or trademark registration. It is the official record for a given matter. Generally, the file wrapper includes more information than is formally published by a patent or trademark office in patents, published patent applications, or trademark registration certificates.
The sorts of materials maintained in file wrappers, the period of time those materials are retained, and the level and ease of public accessibility to them varies by jurisdiction. For instance, in the USA, patent application information is kept confidential initially and generally only made publicly available for published applications and granted patents, with pending applications normally published 18 months from the earliest filing or priority date (subject to potential non-publication requests). (35 U.S.C. § 122).
How & Where to Obtain a File Wrapper
In the past, file wrappers were only available as hard copies in on-site storage at official offices. Today, many patent and trademark offices make at least some file wrapper contents available online—though whether online versions are the official ones or not and whether the online versions are complete or not are questions that can vary by jurisdiction. File wrapper materials are generally also available as certified copies that must be specially ordered (and may have to be physically mailed). Usually a given file wrapper must be obtained from the relevant patent or trademark office that maintains it, although centralized file wrapper access for a few global patent offices is available.
The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) has “Patent Center” and Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) online portals. Very old materials are not always available through these portals. Moreover, some materials are not accessible through Patent Center to the general public, like copies of non-patent literature. The USPTO also has a separate Certified Copy Center that allows officially-certified copies of file wrappers or specific documents from them to be ordered, upon payment of required fees. Certified copies of file wrapper may include materials that are not otherwise publicly available, and include official seals and signatures attesting to their authenticity.
The European Patent Office (EPO) has a European Patent Register with file wrapper information. These materials are also accessible via the Espacenet portal, by clicking the “Register” link within a given record.
There are also separate systems for file wrappers for PCT international patent applications and Madrid Protocol trademark registrations. These are the Patentscope and Madrid Monitor online portals maintained and administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It is also possible to order certified copies of Madrid international trademark registration materials from WIPO, or for applicants to order certified copies of PCT applications from individual PCT receiving offices.
Additionally, Global Dossier portals provide access to file wrapper contents from a number of the most active patent offices worldwide, together with machines translations. Global Dossier has gone by other names in some jurisdictions, like “One Portal Dossier” in Japan and South Korea. Because of the availability of machine translations, these portals can be highly convenient for gathering information about foreign patent applications in other languages. But some documents may not be immediately available through these portals, either due to technical glitches or database update lags.
Why Might You Need a Wrapper?
There are many reasons a file wrapper might be consulted. For instance, they can provide a record of the prosecution history that may inform the status or interpretation of something related to a given patent or trademark. A record of official actions like rejections/refusals and/or applicant amendments or arguments might be found in the file wrapper. Particular documents within a file wrapper might be relied upon for various purposes, or might be needed for submission in other contexts. For instance, in U.S. patent law, the file wrapper might be relied upon for claim construction, doctrine of equivalents analysis, inequitable conduct inquiries, and more.
File wrapper materials in informal, online formats might be sufficient for many purposes, and may be free and easy to access. Information materials might be used for competitive intelligence purposes or as a reference example for work on an unrelated matter, for example. Certified copies or an entire file wrapper, or one or more selected documents from it, might be required for certain formal uses, such as to make priority claims in foreign applications or to be relied upon in legal proceedings where authentication of the materials is important.
The legal important of a file wrapper often depends on the substantive law of the relevant jurisdiction. Under U.S. patent law, prosecution history estoppel or prosecution disclaimer found in a file wrapper might arise and bind the patentee. But many other jurisdictions do not have any such patent prosecution estoppel doctrines, making file wrappers less formally significant. And, moreover, the USPTO does notaccept formal file wrapper estoppel in trademark matters.
Austen Zuege is an attorney at law and registered U.S. patent attorney in Minneapolis whose practice encompasses patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain name cybersquatting, IP agreements and licensing, freedom-to-operate studies, client counseling, and IP litigation. If you have patent, trademark, or other IP issues, he can help.
For patents and trademarks, the term “prosecution history” refers to the back and forth between an applicant and the patent or trademark office. It includes submissions by the applicant, starting with an original application and extending though any amendments or arguments the applicant might later make during official examination of the application. It also encompasses official communications, like office actions, and the particular rejections, objections, refusals, and other notifications that may be contained in them. Oral communications like interviews are a part of it too.
But “prosecution history” refers to more than just a set of documents or particular communications. It is a blanket or umbrella term that refers to all the actions and events involving the patent or trademark office from the time a new application is filed to through grant or registration and even beyond that to post-grant or post-registration actions involving corrections, maintenance or renewals, and the like. So, even if a particular document is purged or deleted or never made part of the permanent record, such a document and the events surrounding it are still part of the prosecution history.
Prosecution histories are important for many reasons. As reflected in “file wrappers,” they are often consulted to understanding the status of a pending application or of a granted patent or issued trademark registration. They can provide insight into why a patent or trademark registration was issued in a particular form, or why a application was abandoned. Sometimes events or materials from the prosecution history of a given patent or trademark registration can even impact the scope or validity of enforceable legal rights.
The prosecution history tends to matter most where prosecution history estoppel or prosecution disclaimer might arise and legally bind the applicant later on. In the U.S., it tends to be more important for patents than for trademarks. Many other countries have different laws that make prosecution history less consequential.
Have an invention you would like to patent? Have a brand you would like to register as a trademark? Concerned about infringing someone else’s intellectual property? Is someone else infringing your IP? Need representation in an IP dispute? Austen is a patent attorney / trademark attorney who can help. These and other IP issues are his area of expertise. Contact Austen today to discuss.
Materials from a presentation by Austen Zuege and Jonathan Bench about patent assignments and rights of priority, including presentation slides and an on-demand video recording, are available here:
Have an invention you would like to patent? Have a brand you would like to register as a trademark? Concerned about infringing someone else’s intellectual property? Is someone else infringing your IP? Need representation in an IP dispute? Austen is a patent attorney / trademark attorney who can help. These and other IP issues are his area of expertise. Contact Austen today to discuss.
At the beginning of 2023, following a year in which new filings declined, some recent and upcoming changes in practice at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) for patent and trademark matters merit attention.
Patents
Reduced official fees for small and micro entities
A change in the U.S. patent laws governing fee reductions for small and micro entities was passed as a small part of a wide-ranging legislative budgetary package at the very end of 2022. The relevant portion was titled the Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2022. It is characteristic of U.S. politics that certain non-budgetary matters like this are appended to budgetary legislation shortly before passage during a holiday season with little public discussion. These patent fee reductions therefore came as somewhat of a surprise. As of December 29, 2022, most official patent fees are now discounted by 60% for small entity applicants (previously this was only a 50% reduction) and by 80% for micro entity applicants (previously this was only a 75% reduction). These reductions apply to most official fees associated with initial filing fees for new applications, actions during examination (such as extension of time fees, request for continued examination [RCE] fees, etc.), as well as fees after grant such as maintenance fees. The requirements to qualify as a small or micro entity are unchanged.
The newly amended law further gives the USPTO power to impose fines for false assertions of small or micro entity status of no less than three (3) times the fee underpayment—with no pre-defined upper limit on that amount. Such fines are not yet in effect and will require the USPTO to first issue implementing regulations that will establish exactly how they will be assessed. However, depending on the scope of later regulations, this creates the possibility of significant penalties for innocent or negligent errors. Historically, a fraudulent assertion of small or micro entity status, done knowingly or willingly with intent to deceive the USPTO, would qualify as inequitable conduct that renders the associated patent unenforceable. But the appeals court responsible for all patent appeals set the threshold for the required intent to deceive extremely high. While the possibility for unenforceability due to intentional fraud will remain, the USPTO will have new authority to impose fines if the assertion of entitlement to small or micro entity fee reductions was merely “false”. There is no explicit statutory requirement for such a “false” assertion to be made with intent to deceive. Thus, the USPTO can potentially impose fines without establishing intent to deceive, potentially including even good faith mistakes. Failure to pay such fines will likely have an impact of the enforceability and/or abandonment/lapse of an associated patent or application. It is unclear how the USPTO will discover or otherwise come to know about false assertions of entity size in order to subject applicants and patentees to fines. It will therefore be important to monitor subsequent USPTO regulations regarding these fines and to see how existing safe harbor provisions for correction of good faith errors will be affected, if at all. In the meantime, this highlights the need to accurately determine entity size status and to notify the USPTO at the appropriate time if entitlement to reduced fees is lost.
Non-DOCX filing format requirements postponed (again)
The highly unpopular surcharge for U.S. non-provisional utility patent applications in a non-DOCX file format has been postponed until January 17, 2024 [Update: this deadline has been again postponed beyond a previously-announced April 3, 2023 and June 30, 2023 implementation deadlines]. Although even when in effect this surcharge will not apply to PCT national phase entries, provisional applications, plant applications, or design applications. Additionally, the USPTO has extended a highly limited opportunity to file a back-up applicant-generated “Auxiliary PDF” version of an application filed in DOCX format indefinitely, in order to potentially allow for later correction of USPTO-side conversion errors involving the DOCX version. These postponements and extensions are the result of many objectionsfrom U.S. patent practitioners and practitioner organizations.
The non-DOCX surcharge is part of the USPTO’s plans to automate certain administrative tasks to reduce administrative overhead costs and staffing associated with legacy systems for processing application materials. While touted as providing benefits to applicants and practitioners, the reality is that there are no meaningful benefits to applicants or practitioners. But, alarmingly, the USPTO has pushed forward with its cost-cutting objectives despite substantial problems apparent with its new Patent Center platform used for DOCX format filings and its tendency to introduce errors. In effect, the USPTO has prioritized budgetary cost-cutting over maintaining the integrity of the contents of newly filed patent applications. This is what has troubled practitioners most of all.
In brief, the Patent Center system alters uploaded DOCX-format patent application files and has been shown to introduce errors in the substantive content of some uploaded applications. These errors occur only some of the time, but in a significant enough percentage of cases for it to matter. This creates new burdens on applicants and their U.S. patent counsel to review uploaded applications to try to identify errors introduced by the USPTO’s electronic filing platform. These burdens are particularly difficult to manage for U.S. applications based on a Paris Convention foreign priority claim, where U.S. counsel did not prepare the original application and is therefore less familiar with the intended contents. In addition, the USPTO has greatly limited opportunities to correct errors resulting from the way its (proprietary) systems process, convert, “validate”, and alter uploaded application documents. In many circumstances (when a priority claim cannot be relied upon), corrections must be made within one year of initial U.S. filing and will require a petition fee larger than the non-DOCX surcharge. The USPTO has indicated it will deny petitions filed more than a year after initial filing seeking to correct errors that its proprietary computer systems introduced. Moreover, the non-DOCX surcharge is essentially punitive. It far exceeds the estimated administrative savings of $3.15 per application that the USPTO has been able to quantify. Most problems with the roll-out of the non-DOCX surcharge are the result of the USPTO committing to adopt certain proprietary computer systems based on a cursory and inadequate initial investigation of alternatives, greatly misunderstanding the stability and capabilities of the DOCX file format (and its alleged status as a “standard”), and having unrealistic goals for software development associated with implementation of a new proprietary filing platform (and unrealistic projections of net cost savings), coupled with a Kafkaesque disregard for the burdens imposed on applicants and the general public by its actions.
Guidance for creating application documents (hopefully) compliant for USPTO DOCX filing is available here. Bu applicants with complex application content should consider the possibility of paying the non-DOCX official surcharge and filing applications in PDF format to avoid the risks associated with USPTO-generated errors in substantive application content.
Hard copies of patents still being issued (for now)
[UPDATE: The USPTO has announced that electronic patent grants, now being called “eGrants”, will begin April 18, 2023. There will also be a transition period of unspecified duration during which paper ceremonial copies (with a certification statement and a special ribbon and seal) will still be issued in addition to an eGrant electronic copy. A paper presentation copy, certified copy, or ceremonial copy can be ordered for a fee after the transition period.] The USPTO previously announced that sometime in 2022 it would cease issuing paper patents and would issue only digital patents instead. However, the USPTO has continued to issue hard copies of granted patents and has made no further announcements about the date after which only electronic patents will be issued. Presumably, the USPTO will eventually cease to issue hard copies of patents (except upon an express request) but it is unclear exactly when that will occur.
Patent public search tool
The USPTO’s legacy open-access patent and published patent application search tools (PatFT and AppFT) have been retired. The PubEAST and PubWEST systems previously only available in-person (and to examiners) have also been retired. In their place a new Patent Public Search tool is now freely available online. It is based on the old PubEAST/PubWEST tools. Its new USOCR database allows U.S. patents granted before 1970 to be keyword searched—the old PatFT system previously had a 1970 cut-off for keyword searching. The launch of this new tool was rather awkward, with little training or instructional information initially provided on how to use it. But, since its launch, training guides and frequently asked questions (FAQs) have become available. This tool currently exists with two different interfaces: Patent Public Search Basic (PPUBS Basic) and an advanced search. Both allow U.S. patents and published applications to be searched simultaneously.
The Basic search interface allows granted U.S. patents and published patent applications to be fetched by number, and allows some keyword-based searches, but returns only PDF copies.
As the name implies, the advanced search includes advanced search functionality. Although the advanced interface is highly esoteric and non-intuitive, and the interface may not display properly on all computers (in particular, primary the input field near the upper left sometimes appears hidden when the tool is opened on computers with small display screens like laptops). The advanced interface is currently the only way the USPTO provides “full text” of published patent documents. PDF image versions are also available by clicking the “T / [camera icon]” button at the top left of the “Document Viewer” panel that normally appears at the right-hand side of the screen along with the text. Toggling that button allows switching between text or PDF image displays of a given patent document.
Fetching a particular patent or published application by number is surprisingly difficult with the “advanced” interface. A given patent can be queried using the “.pn.” field code or by typing in an “external search” URL to a web browser. But expect some frustration because these “external search” URLs do not seem to consistently work at all.
An alternative way to reach a particular U.S. patent or published application is to utilize the Patent Center interface and enter a patent or published patent application number. From the resultant record, there are links available to the Patent Public Search text versions of the published application and granted patent (if any) under the Patent Center “Application Data” tab. The button with the “T/[camera icon]” label can be clicked to toggle between a text view and a PDF image of the patent document in Patent Public Search. While navigating to patent documents through Patent Center requires many clicks, you might say too many, using it may still be easier than the other alternatives available through the USPTO.
More information about using Patent Public Search is available here.
More U.S. patent filing information
Please also see the Guide to Foreign Priority Patent Filings in the USA for in-depth discussion of requirements for foreign applicants to file U.S. counterpart patent applications with a foreign priority claim.
Trademarks
Shortened response periods in effect
The time period for responding to U.S. trademark office actions is now only three (3) months. This shortened response period is indicated in new office actions. Applicants can, however, request a single 3-month extension of time by paying an official fee (currently $125 if filed electronically). An extension must be expressly requested by the original 3-month deadline. This shortened response period does not apply to Madrid Protocol extensions, which will still enjoy a full 6-month office action response period. Moreover, shortened response periods will not apply to post-registration office actions until October 7, 2023.
Unlimited window for expungement requests still open
Any party may request cancellation by expungement of some or all of the goods or services in a U.S. trademark registration because the registrant never used the mark in commerce with those goods or services. Normally an expungement proceeding must be requested in a period from three to ten (3-10) years after the registration date. However, a temporarily unlimited expungement filing period is in effect until December 27, 2023 during which expungement may be requested for any registration at least three (3) years old, regardless of the ten-year limit. In other words, the ten-year time limit for expungement proceeding requests will only go into effect after December 27, 2023. Expungement proceedings are available for all U.S. registrations but are especially significant for foreign-originating registrations (Madrid [§66] or Paris Convention [§44] cases) where proof of use is not required prior to registration. Additional general information about expungement proceedings is available here, and a listing of reexamination and expungement requests made to date is available here.
More U.S. trademark filing information
Please also see the Guide to Trademark Registration in the USA for in-depth discussion of requirements for foreign applicants to file U.S. federal trademark applications.
January 2023
Austen Zuege is an attorney at law and registered U.S. patent attorney in Minneapolis whose practice encompasses patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain name cybersquatting, IP agreements and licensing, freedom-to-operate studies, client counseling, and IP litigation. If you have patent, trademark, or other IP issues, he can help.
