Assignee Patent Applicants and Foreign Filing

The America Invents Act changed up a lot of the paperwork typically filed initially with an original patent application. One of the changes allowed “applicants,” or assignees, to directly file an application. Previously, an inventor would file the application, and a recorded assignment would be filed contemporaneously, transferring ownership of the application to an assignee company, which would then control prosecution of the application and own the ensuing patent.

Apparently, this caused priority issues when a PCT application was filed, because a discrepancy between the inventor on the US application and the applicant (the company) on the PCT application would exist. More than a few PCT cases had priority claims declared invalid because of that discrepancy, which led to the patents from the PCT case being dropped as well.

The AIA has brought in new forms which now identify applicants that are assignees rather than inventors. The Application Data Sheet includes a section which applicants who are not inventors can fill out. One of the Power of Attorney forms is to be used by assignee applicant, while another one is to be used only by an inventor applicant. By naming the assignee as the applicant in these post-AIA cases, the discrepancy in the priority claims can be avoided.

 

Posted in Patent | Leave a comment

Trademark Likelihood of Confusion, in Triathlon Products

Today, a basic primer on trademark infringement and an example of something that seems pretty clear. A registered trademark gives the owner the right to prevent anyone from using a mark in a way that is likely to cause confusion. This “likelihood of confusion” is fleshed out in a multi-factor analysis of the similarity of the marks, the products, the channels of commerce, and other aspects of the use.

Importantly, a likelihood of confusion analysis is not solely based on whether two marks have a similar name or appearance. The strength of the registered mark, the similarity of the goods or services on which the marks are used, the similarity in the sight, sound and meaning of the marks, evidence of actual confusion, the similarity of the channels through which the products or services are marketed, the sophistication of the consumers and their ability to distinguish between two marks, intent of the other party, and the likelihood of market expansion by the parties are all considered. However, frequently, the two most important factors in the analysis are: 1) the similatiry of the marks, in sight, sound, and appearance, and 2) the similarity of the goods or services on which the marks are used. Indeed, strong similarity, or even identity, between two the appearance of two marks can dominate the analysis and reduce the need for similarity in the other factors.

Occasionally, you will see two marks that are identical, and infringement is clear. This is often the case where a product is copied wholesale. However, you will often see unfortunate coincidences. I believe the below is an example of that.

Polar is a company that manufactures fitness electronics, such as GPS watches, cadence and power meters, and heart rate monitors. It is well known in the running, cycling, and triathlon communities as one of the leading electronics developers. A lot of athletes use and love Polar products. Polar has a registered trademark (No. 1,836,604) for a stylized design of its name, shown here:

Mark Image

The mark is registered in connection with “computer interfaces and software to be utilized with heart rate monitors for athletic and medical use” and for “heart rate monitors for athletic and medical use.” You most often see the mark in this form:

On the way to Ironman 70.3 Oceanside in California last March, my racing buddy was looking through a triathlon magazine. He was thumbing through the pages looking for his national ranking. Out of the corner of my eye, I spotted what I thought was that distinctive black-red-black logo Polar, and I looked over. I saw this:

ROLA trademark

Now, these marks are not identical. But they are close! First of all, the literal element of the mark is nearly the same: POLAR versus ROLA. Three letters the same, with the only different letter R being only very, very slight different from the letter P. Then, the same second letter is red, contrasted with black in the rest of the word. Arguably, the POLAR trademark registration makes no claim of color, but one can’t argue that the same colors typically used don’t contribute to at least a first impression, perhaps causing an initial interest based on color confusion. Once the colors have grabbed the onlooker’s attention, then the protected aspects of the trademark registration play a heavier role. Lastly, both marks have a negative strikethrough element running through all of the letters, and at the same height in each mark. All of these elements combined present a case of near identity between the marks.

Now, the products are not that similar. POLAR is used for heart monitors, and ROLA is used for cargo baskets. But they do both have an athletic focus. Further, both products are routinely marketed, as seen here, through triathlon channels. The case of infringement is strong here, but I think (or hope) that ROLA’s adoption of the mark was coincidental or perhaps was unknowingly, subconsciously inspired by POLAR.

Posted in Trademark | Tagged , | Leave a comment

KFYI Interview

I just finished an interview with KFYI journalist George Lin.  The interview is on the subject of the rise in patent filings in Arizona and the US.  It should air sometime next week.  I’ll post details when I know more.

Posted in News | Leave a comment

Angelo’s, In-N-Out Burger, and their Confusingly Similar Signs

A few weekends ago I competed at Ironman 70.3 Oceanside in California. Oceanside has some restaurants I’ve not seen anywhere else before, in the country or even in California. One of those was a place called Angelo’s, which served everything from burgers to gyros to Mexican. It was decent enough, though probably not the best race food. What struck us was the sign out front. The friend I traveled with is not a lawyer, but he is in sales, so he may be more sensitive to logos than the average bear. We both noticed the sign immediately:

ironman oceanside triathlon angelos burger

The color scheme and prominent shape of the stylized “A” instantly conjured up the iconic In-N-Out Burger sign.  You know the one:

ironman oceanside triathlon in n out

I have no idea how there has not been a lawsuit over this sign. In-N-Out hasn’t shied away from suing others for trademark infringement in the past.  The Angelo’s logo above is interesting because it appears only on the signs that face the road – the signs on the top sides of the restaurant had upstanding As (think Alvin and the Chipmunks “A”).  The road signs are in a place where motorists will catch only a quick glimpse of it from afar or as they pass by.  And with that quick glimpse, the color combination, the angled A, and the writing superimposed through the middle of the A could easily confuse the customer.  It did us, even after we knew we were going to Angelo’s.

Next post: the other incredibly similar trademark infringement we saw during this triathlon trip: ROLA v. POLAR.

Posted in News, Trademark | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Patent Application Filings Increase Dramatically

Inventors and attorneys rushed to file patent applications before March 16, 2013.  That date marked an important change in patent law, with applications filed before being subject to the old patent law, and applications filed after being subject to the new patent law as it has been substantially rewritten by the America Invents Act.  Dennis Crouch of Patently-O produced the below chart showing the drastic change in filings before the deadline.  The week before the changeover, about 6 times as many non-provisional applications were filed, and about 5 times as many provisional applications as is typical.  I’ve reproduced his chart here.

patent application filings

Posted in News, Patent | Leave a comment

Evolution of the Micro Entity

Today, as the last bit of the America Invents Act goes into effect, the Patent Office introduces a new fee structure.  Some fees are going up, some fees are going down (Patently-O has a nice article comparing new fees to old).  The micro entity status is now introduced and effective, and promises to save some inventors a little bit of money and create a huge logistical hassle.

Previously, two types of entities existed: large and small.  Small entities paid half the fee that large entities did.  By law, small entities are individuals and independent inventors who have not assigned or licensed their patent to a large entity.  Small businesses are defined under the SBA, and are typically considered as companies with less than 500 employees.  Nonprofit organizations, such as universities and nonprofit scientific or educational organizations, were also considered small entities, provided they have not assigned or licensed the patent rights to a large entity.

The AIA has created a third entity: the micro-entity.  Micro-entities get to pay 75% of the large entity fees – 50% of the small entity fees – but the restrictions placed on the definition of “micro-entity” are daunting.  A micro-entity must meet four requirements:

  • it first qualifies as a small entity;
  • it has not been named as an inventor in more than 4 previously-filed patent applications;
  • it has not, in the last calendar year preceding the year in which the fee is paid, had a gross income (as defined in Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) which is greater than 3 times the median household income for that preceding year, as most recently reported by the Census Bureau; and
  • it has not assigned, granted, or conveyed any ownership interest in the application to an entity that made more than 3 times the median household income.

Got that?  The first requirement is fairly easy to knock out.  We do it all the time.  The second requirement can be more tricky.  Some inventors forget they have been named in patent applications, particularly if their role was relatively minor (they may have contributed only a small bit of material claimed in an application).  So the attorney is probably going to look up each inventor before quoting the government fee.  If an application names several inventors, this grows a bit burdensome.

The last two requirements are really the stumbling blocks, for a few reasons.  First, attorneys generally don’t want to know – or don’t want to ask, at least – how much money their clients made.  It is a subject most consider rude, and it is especially awkward to ask a client how much he or she made before quoting them a fee.  Clients may be suspicious that the fee they are given has been adjusted after answering an income question.  Second, even if the client does tell the attorney how much he or she makes, now the attorney has to check that against the median household income.  This would seem to require a little research into the depths of the Internal Revenue Code and the Census Bureau both.  However, digging into the finalized rules on the AIA micro-entity status, the rules state that the Patent Office will provide this information on its (most difficult to read) website.  Well, I couldn’t find it.  But, the Patent Office does have a form for asserting micro-entity status, and a link on that form shows that the three times the median household income is $150,162.00 a year.  Houston, we have a number.

Unfortunately, the story doesn’t stop there.  Micro-entity status must be checked each time a fee is paid.  This can be quite frequently, depending on the examination of the application.  If a client’s income changes from year to year, the number will have to be checked each year.  So each time a fee is paid, the attorney will have to go through the rigamarole of asking a client how much he or she made last year, whether he or she has filed other patent applications, and then comparing his or her income to the rest of the US.  I predict that we won’t see many filings made under the micro-entity status because of the administrative burden on the attorney.

Posted in Patent | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Information Disclosure Statements

Information Disclosures Statements patent and trademark officeare used to notify the Patent Office of the art (inventions, publications, etc.) that may bear on the invention that the Applicant is trying to get patented. They should be used anytime a search is performed before or during examination of an application. Generally, they are used to disclose prior art found during a patentability or clearance search that is conducted in preparation of submitting an application. However, sometimes the applicant will become aware of prior art after the application is filed. This might happen for a variety of reasons, such as a foreign Patent Office has performed a search, the applicant has done additional searching, or the application was filed hastily and pending independent searches were still be returned.  Even though the application has already been filed, the IDS should be submitted. Doing so ensures that the applicant satisfies its duty of candor to the Patent Office, a duty every applicant bears when dealing with the Patent Office. A supplemental IDS should thus be filed. Multiple IDSs may be filed in a single patent application, and the Examiner will consider each one as long it is in compliance with the formal requirements governing IDSs.

Posted in Patent | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Project Salute helps Arizona Veterans this Weekend

I will be participating at Project Salute this weekend.  If you know of a veteran that has had trouble navigating VA benefits, please encourage them to attend.

The American Bar Association Young Lawyer’s Division will be hosting Project Salute this Friday and Saturday. Project Salute connects volunteer lawyers with veterans to educate veterans on available benefits and to assist them in obtaining these benefits.  Currently, over 1,000,000 decisions on VA benefits are pending, a majority of which have been pending for more than half a year.  Project Salute will be held at the Coliseum (1826 W. McDowell Road) on Friday, March 8, 2013, and on Saturday, March 9, 2013.  Project Salute is a larger part of Arizona Stand Down this weekend (March 8-10), which provides services to Arizona’s homeless veterans, including housing assistance, substance abuse counseling, DES employment and benefits assistance, social security information, tax services, legal aid, and other services like meals, clothing, haircuts, showers, and pet care.

Posted in News | Leave a comment

Nuts and Bolts of International Preliminary Examination and the Demand Thereof

International preliminary examination of an international application may be requested by filing a demand under Chapter II of the PCT to obtain a preliminary and non-binding opinion on the questions whether the claimed invention appears to be novel, to involve an inventive step (to be non-obvious), and to be industrially applicable.  Examination is chiefly a process through which an applicant gains insight into the patentability of the invention and its likely reception in foreign patent offices.

The international preliminary examination is carried out by An International Preliminary Examining Authority (“IPEA”) carries out the examination and issues an International Preliminary Report on patentability (“IPRP”) which may provide you with some ability to evaluate the chances of obtaining patents in foreign countries before deciding whether to enter the patent offices of those countries.  Because a binding and final decision regarding patentability can only be made by the patent office in the country to which the international application is later sent, the IPRP is preliminary and non-binding, but it can be persuasive.

A demand can only be made if two conditions are met.  They generally are, especially when the international application was filed with a major nation.  First, the applicant must be a resident or national of a contracting state bound by Chapter II of the PCT.  Second, the international application must have been filed with the receiving office of a contracting state bound by Chapter II.  As of September 7, 2012, all contracting states were also bound by Chapter II.

The demand is made separately from the international application and is submitted directly to a competent IPEA.  Where the US was the receiving office, the US and Korean patent offices are  competent IPEAs.  In addition, if the US was the receiving office and the European or Australian patent offices were the search authorities, those patent offices are also competent IPEAs.  The demand automatically elects all contracting states which have been designated (frequently all member states of the PCT).

The demand must be made within the later of two time limits: 1) 3 months from the transmittal date of the International Search Report (“ISR”), or 2) 22 months from the priority date.  Generally, it is advisable to wait until the ISR and Written Opinion are issued before demand is made, so that the applicant can review the ISR and Written Opinion and determine whether it is prudent to file a demand.  The IPRP is then due within 28 months from the priority, or 6 months from the start of the examination (generally when the IPEA has received the demand, payment, and the ISR and Written Opinion), or 6 months from the date on which a translation of the application is submitted to the IPEA, whichever is later.

The applicant can amend the claims, description, and drawings of the international application before the start of the international preliminary examination.  Amendment can also be made during examination, if time permits, before the IPRP is prepared.  Amendments made in this way are identified in the demand as Article 34 amendments, which differ from Article 19 amendments.  Article 19 amendments may have been made previously.

There are two administrative fees associated with the demand.  A preliminary examination fee of 1850 Euros must be paid for the work involved in performing the international preliminary examination and preparation of the IPRP.  A handling fee of 165 Euros must also be paid to cover administrative and internal costs.  As of this writing, that is a total fee of about $2,686.00.  Attorney service fees are also generally required as well.

Posted in Patent | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Trademark Designations: TM / MC

I saw a designation I’ve not seen before on some packaging at Costco this weekend.  We walked down the coffee aisle, and the Starbucks VIA coffee packets were branded with a NEVER BE WITHOUT GREAT COFFEE tagline followed by a “TM / MC” label.  I haven’t seen this label before (as others apparently haven’t either), so I had to do a little research as to whether this was some sort of US label I’d never heard of, or if it had to do with trademark requirements in other countries.
Canadian Trademarks
The “MC” label is a notice symbol used in Canada to designate a common law trademark.  In the US, common-law marks are identified, if their owners choose to identify them, with a “TM” designation.  The TM symbol conveys that the owner considers the mark associated with the TM to be a trademark, but has not registered the mark federally.  Federally registered marks can carry the ® label.  Similarly, Canada has a dual-mode notice system that differentiates between registered and unregistered marks.  The symbols ® or MD indicate that a mark is registered with the Canadian Trademark Office, and the symbols TM or MC indicate the mark is not registered.  MD stands for Marque Déposée, and MC stands for Marque de Commerce.  The MD and MC versions are more frequently used in the French side of Canada to the eastern part of the country, but frequently large distributors will simply mark their products with both the English and the French designations.  In Quebec, some will even use an E in a circle (for “enrigistrée”) in place of the English symbol ®. (for “registered”).

Having seen this mark in Arizona, a long way from Quebec, I am surprised that Starbucks is branding its products so widely and consistently.

Posted in Trademark | Tagged , , | Leave a comment