The attorney general of Vermont, Bill Sorrell, has filed suit against the patent trolls who claim to own patents on the technology of scanning and attaching scanned documents to emails via a network. The press release is here. These patent trolls are the same ones I was interviewed about here.
Yale Law school recently had a panel dicussing Non-practicing Entities (“Patent Trolls”). Arguments for and against specific legislation to stop patent trolls were discussed. Patently-o-blog has a nice write up.
Interesting post here at patentlyoblog . The main point is about 3% of all recently issued patents were first filed as a provisional patent application, then one year later, a PCT international applicaiton was filed, then 18 months after that (a total of 30 months from the original provisional filing date), the patent applications were filed in the US patent office (technically they entered the National Stage in the United States, among other countries). On drawback is that the USPTO will not put your patent application into a queue for examination until 30 months after your priority date, hence your issued patent will basically be delayed by 30 months. A positive aspect is that you will have “patent pending” status for at least 30 months in the US, plus whatever time it takes for the USPTO to examine your patent application (could be 12 months or more).
Delaying an examination in the US for over 30 months may be good if your business plan only requires you to have “patent pending” status for your invention, especially if you believe that your invention may have a slim change of actually issuing into a patent due to similar prior art.
The patentlyo blog has a nice write up on what is required for a person or entity to qualify for micro-entity status and the resultant 75% off of patent fees. In general, the applicant needs to answer the following:
- Does the applicant qualify as a small entity? (If no, then no micro-entity);Has the applicant or any joint inventor filed more than four US non-provisional patent applications? (If yes, then no micro-entity, unless those applications were from a prior employment and assigned to the prior employer);
- Did the applicant or any listed inventor have an income for the past year that was greater than $150,000? (If yes, then no micro-entity). This number will change annually based upon median US household income; and
- Have rights in the application been promised or licensed to a non-micro-entity? (If yes, then no micro-entity).
Last week I attended an Inventors Association of Connecticut meeting where the presenters were from the Stamford Innovation Center (SIC). The SIC provides an environment where entrepreneurs and early-stage startups can gather, collaborate, and innovate. According to Peter Propp, the SIC has powerful network of entrepreneurs, investors, mentors, and industry leaders, who can provide the resources, expertise, and talent an entrepreneur needs. Contact the SIC for more information.
An article at ARS TECHNICA describes how small businesses are being targeted by non-practicing entities (aka Patent Trolls) for patent infringement if they own a scanner that has the capability of scanning a document, then emailing that scanned document to someone. Many new scanners, printers, all-in-one devices now have that capability, and these Patent Trolls are sending out demand letters to all sorts of businesses, including at least one in Connecticut. If you ignore the letter, however, you could be setting yourself up for a default judgement if the Patent Troll files a law suit! Please contact a patent attorney if you do receive such a letter from a Patent Troll.
Hello inventors. Micro entity fees are set to become effective on March 19, 2103 according to the federal register . Micro entity status will reduce patent fees by 75% for those who qualify as micro entities.
In general to qualify for micro entity status one must satisfy these four requirements:
(1) the applicant qualifies as a “small entity”, as defined in 37 CFR 1.27,
(2) neither the applicant nor the inventor nor any joint inventor has been named as the inventor on more than four previously filed patent applications – but the following applications do not count toward the four application limit:applications filed in another country ;
provisional applications ;
international applications for which the National Stage fee was not paid – in other words, PCT applications which did not go past the International Stage;
applications resulting from prior employment, if the applicant has assigned, or is under an obligation by contract or law to assign, all ownership rights in the application as the result of the applicant’s previous employment. Note that this does not apply to the applicant’s current employment.
(3) neither the applicant nor the inventor nor any joint inventor had, in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, a gross income (as defined by the IRS) exceeding three times the median household income for that preceding calendar year (as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census). The income level which will entitle an applicant to “Micro Entity” status (criteria (3), above) is initially set to $150,162, based on the 2011 figures (the latest year available when the regulations were issued in December 2012); and(4) has not assigned, granted, or conveyed, and is not under an obligation by contract or law to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the application concerned to an entity that would not meet (3), above.
Inventors, be aware! Patent applications filed on March 16, 2013 and after will fall under First to File scheme created by the America Invents Act of 2011. What that means is that those new applications (dated 3-16-2013 and after) cannot claim to an “invention date” prior to the application filing date, the 1 year grace period will be limited due to prior user rights, and there will be post-grant review, and the patent application may be invalidated by public uses and sales of similar inventions in foreign countries. The good news is that secret prior invention or reduction to practice by a third party will, generally, no longer be relevant to patentability.
Tuesday night we had a great Inventor’s Association of Connecticut Meeting. The meeting was in the form of a discussion panel, with two patent attorneys and one patent agent. A video of the event is here.