Copyright Lawsuit Filing Update (through February 25, 2007)
Posted by Stephen M. Nipper at February 25, 2007 11:31 PM
Subscription information can be found here: Welcome To RSS Mojo.
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v.
cacdce
2:2007cv01006
2007-02-12
Arista Records LLC et al
scdce
6:2007cv00486
2007-02-20
Continue reading "Copyright Lawsuit Filing Update (through February 25, 2007)" »
April 2007 Revision of Patent Cooperation Treaty Procedures, Notice of proposed rule making (16Feb2007)
Posted by Kristen Cichocki at February 20, 2007 10:30 AM
April 2007 Revision of Patent Cooperation Treaty Procedures
Notice of proposed rule making (16Feb2007)
View and/or download a PDF of this notice at the following url:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/72fr7583.pdf
Copyright Lawsuit Filing Update (through February 19, 2007)
v. Janel Russell Designs, Inc.
mndce
0:2007cv01077
2007-02-09
1994 STEEL FACTORY CORPORATION et al v. CROWN I
pawdce
2:2007cv00169
2007-02-09
Amini Innovation Corporation v. Furniture Inter
wawdce
2:2007cv00160
2007-01-31
Continue reading "Copyright Lawsuit Filing Update (through February 19, 2007)" »
Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce Announces FY 2008 Budget Proposal for USPTO (05Feb2007)
Posted by Kristen Cichocki at February 7, 2007 07:08 PM
Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce Announces FY 2008 Budget Proposal for USPTO
President's request provides full access to fees
In a telephone press conference on February 5, Steve Pinkos, deputy under secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, announced the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Department of Commerce's United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is $1.916 billion. This is the fourth consecutive year the President's budget recommends full access to the agency's anticipated fee collections.
"The President's budget request for fiscal year 2008 allows the USPTO to build on its recent successes in improving quality and increasing the number of patent and trademark examinations," noted Deputy Under Secretary Pinkos. "It also provides the resources to continue our record hiring of patent examiners, and to expand our efforts to protect U.S. intellectual property around the globe."
Patent examiners completed 332,000 patent applications in 2006, the largest number ever, while achieving the lowest patent allowance error rate -- 3.5% -- in over 20 years. At 54%, the patent allowance rate also was the lowest on record. Patent allowance rate is the percentage of applications reviewed by examiners that are approved. The agency also processed a record number of trademark applications in 2006. USPTO trademark examining attorneys took final action on 378,111 trademark applications, a 36% increase over the previous year, and achieved a record low final action error rate, with mistakes found in only 3.6% of the trademark applications reviewed in FY 2006.
In FY 2008, the USPTO anticipates hiring an additional 1,200 patent examiners and to continue expanding the agency's award-winning telework efforts. The proposed budget also allows the agency to continue toward its goal of processing all patent and trademark applications electronically. Additionally, the President's request will allow USPTO to continue working internationally to protect American intellectual property, including expanding its Global Intellectual Property Academy and posting additional IP experts abroad.
United States and Australia to Extend Cooperation on Patent Search and Examination Services (07Feb2007)
PRESS RELEASE
Contact:
Brigid Quinn or Ruth Nyblod
(571) 272-8400 or
brigid.quinn@uspto.gov
ruth.nyblod@uspto.gov
United States and Australia to Extend Cooperation on Patent Search and Examination Services
On January 24, 2007, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and IP Australia agreed to extend a project under which IP Australia provides search and examination services on international patent applications filed with the USPTO under provisions of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).
This agreement is a continuation of the project launched between the two offices in 2005, and is scheduled to begin on March 1, 2007 and run 12 months.
Cooperation on PCT search and examination work is part of the USPTO's ongoing efforts to improve examination efficiency and quality, while reducing the growing backlog of U.S. national patent applications waiting to be examined. USPTO found that the quality and accuracy of the work done by IP Australia during phase one warrants extending the project and increasing the number of applications it processes.
In this phase of the project, IP Australia will process up to 1,200 PCT applications over the course of one year, covering a range of technologies. The USPTO will continue to review IP Australia's work to ensure that it meets USPTO standards for quality and accuracy.
"High quality and timely examination of patent applications advances science and technology and creates the certainty innovators need in capital driven markets," noted Jon Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO. "A growing backlog is detrimental to U.S. innovation and the economy. This project builds on the long history of cooperation between the USPTO and IP Australia and gives us the ability to open another front in our battle to reduce our growing backlog."
IP Australia's Director General, Ian Heath explained why IP Australia was pleased to sign up to a new phase of the project, " Participation in this project is a significant opportunity for IP Australia to move closer to its vision of being an office of choice and for enhancing its international reputation. It represents a further step towards achieving the goal of reducing re-work between offices and making mutual exploitation of work a reality for the ultimate benefit of Australian innovators and the IP system as a whole. "
Each year, the USPTO receives about 50,000 international PCT applications in addition to nearly 450,000 national applications. Cooperation with IP Australia will allow the USPTO to dedicate more resources to examining the over 800,000 national applications currently in the pipeline, with the goal of increasing productivity and enhancing quality.
The PCT is an international agreement that simplifies the filing of patent applications in its 135 member states. A PCT application may be used as a national application for a patent in any of the designated PCT countries. International applicants request PCT search and examination reports to help them determine if an application meets basic patent criteria before committing to the high cost of translating and filing an application in one or more PCT countries. The USPTO and IP Australia are among the national patent offices authorized to conduct PCT searches and examinations.
USPTO To Unveil FY 2008 Budget (5 Feb 2007)
Posted by Kristen Cichocki at February 5, 2007 10:45 AM
MEDIA ADVISORY
Contact:
Brigid Quinn or Ruth Nyblod
(571) 272-8400 or
brigid.quinn@uspto.gov
ruth.nyblod@uspto.gov
USPTO To Unveil FY 2008 Budget
[Call in starting at 1:10 p.m. ET]
Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property Steve Pinkos will unveil highlights of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) FY 2008 budget request by teleconference on Monday, February 5, 2007.
| WHO | Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property Steve Pinkos |
| WHAT | Teleconference - Highlights of USPTO's FY 2008 budget. |
| WHEN | Monday, February 5, 2007 1:15 p.m. ET |
Note: The passcode (USPTO) and leader's name (Stephen Pinkos) will be required to join the call.
Deputy Under Secretary Pinkos will take questions after his presentation.
Patent Lawsuit Filing Mojo (through January 7, 2007)
Posted by Stephen M. Nipper at February 3, 2007 11:53 PM
Sherryn Haynes v. R.H. Dyck, Inc., et al
caedce
2:2006cv02944
2006-12-29
Synvasive Technology, Inc. v. Stryker Corporation, et al
caedce
2:2006cv00049
2007-01-03
1st Technology LLC v. Riptown.Com Media
nvdce
2:2006cv01650
2006-12-28
Acco Brands USA LLC v. PC Guardian Anti-Theft Products, Inc. et al
ilndce
1:2006cv07102
2006-12-22
Aspex Eyewear Inc v. Marchon Eyewear Inc
cacdce
2:2006cv08000
2006-12-15
ATEN International Co., Ltd. v. Emine Technology Co., Ltd
candce
3:2007cv00012
2007-01-03
Continue reading "Patent Lawsuit Filing Mojo (through January 7, 2007)" »
Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through January 7, 2007)
Subscription information for THIS service can still be found here: Welcome To RSS Mojo.
Subscription information (including a free trial) for the new weekly service can be found here: Trademark Lawsuit Mojo. Sign up today!
Airwater Corporation v. Worldwide Water, LLC
madce
4:2006cv40288
2006-12-29
Al Safa Halal Ltd. v. As-Salaam Foods LLC et al
nyedce
1:2006cv06741
2006-12-22
Amaru Entertainment v. Yu
cacdce
2:2006cv07976
2006-12-14
Continue reading "Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through January 7, 2007)" »
Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through December 17, 2006)
Subscription information for THIS service can still be found here: Welcome To RSS Mojo.
Subscription information (including a free trial) for the new weekly service can be found here: Trademark Lawsuit Mojo. Sign up today!
4S Kelwood General Partnership v. Schaul
casdce
3:2006cv02616
2006-11-28
AD MAGIC, INC. v. ADVERTISING MAGIC, INC. et al
njdce
2:2006cv05775
2006-12-01
Aire Serv Heating & Air Conditioning Inc v. Hicks
okwdce
5:2006cv01331
2006-12-04
Continue reading "Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through December 17, 2006)" »
Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through November 27, 2006)
Subscription information for THIS service can still be found here: Welcome To RSS Mojo.
Subscription information (including a free trial) for the new weekly service can be found here: Trademark Lawsuit Mojo. Sign up today!
136 COLLINS AVENUE, L.C. et al v. EXECUTIVE NIGHT CLUB GROUP, INC. et al
pawdce
2:2006cv01553
2006-11-20
3M Company v. Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GMBH & Co.. KG
mndce
0:2006cv04564
2006-11-20
Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. v. WorldNews, Inc. et al
nysdce
1:2006cv13313
2006-11-17
Continue reading "Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through November 27, 2006)" »
Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through November 16, 2006)
Subscription information for THIS service can still be found here: Welcome To RSS Mojo.
Subscription information (including a free trial) for the new weekly service can be found here: Trademark Lawsuit Mojo. Sign up today!
Allied Van Lines Inc v. American Nickel
cacdce
5:2006cv01220
2006-11-07
Apio Inc v. Unilever United States Inc
cacdce
2:2006cv07074
2006-11-03
Autodesk Inc v. Open Design Alliance
wawdce
2:2006cv01637
2006-11-13
Continue reading "Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through November 16, 2006)" »
Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through November 5, 2006)
Subscription information for THIS service can still be found here: Welcome To RSS Mojo.
Subscription information (including a free trial) for the new weekly service can be found here: Trademark Lawsuit Mojo. Sign up today!
American Electrolier, Inc. et al v. KBK, Inc. et al
nysdce
1:2006cv11438
2006-10-27
American Medical Response, Inc v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc.
txedce
6:2006cv00465
2006-10-27
American Medical Technologists v. American Association of Medical Assistants
ilndce
1:2006cv05891
2006-10-30
Continue reading "Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through November 5, 2006)" »
Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through October 26, 2006)
Subscription information for THIS service can still be found here: Welcome To RSS Mojo.
Subscription information (including a free trial) for the new weekly service can be found here: Trademark Lawsuit Mojo. Sign up today!
Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Krieger et al
ilndce
1:2006cv05672
2006-10-18
American Blind and Wallpaper Factory, Incorporated v. 3 Day Blinds, Incorporated
miedce
2:2006cv14580
2006-10-19
American Healthtech, Inc. v. The Health Technology Center, Inc.
candce
4:2006cv06458
2006-10-16
Continue reading "Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through October 26, 2006)" »
Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through October 17, 2006)
Subscription information for THIS service can still be found here: Welcome To RSS Mojo.
Subscription information (including a free trial) for the new weekly service can be found here: Trademark Lawsuit Mojo. Sign up today!
AAA BAIL YES BONDING AGENCIES, INC. v. BAILBONDS.COM, INC. et al
paedce
2:2006cv04459
2006-10-06
ACCESS-ABILITY, INC. v. LIFT-ABILITY, INC.
paedce
2:2006cv04548
2006-10-11
Adamba Imports International, Inc. v. Central European Distribution Corporation et al
nyedce
1:2006cv05448
2006-10-06
Continue reading "Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through October 17, 2006)" »
Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through October 8, 2006)
Subscription information for THIS service can still be found here: Welcome To RSS Mojo.
Subscription information (including a free trial) for the new weekly service can be found here: Trademark Lawsuit Mojo. Sign up today!
AFRICAN FORMULA PRODUCTS, INC. v. JOIE COSMETICS, INC. et al
njdce
3:2006cv04720
2006-09-29
Alliance/Burkhardt, LLC v. Reed et al
mddce
1:2006cv02607
2006-10-04
American Silver et al v. Emanuel Covenant Communities, et al
utdce
2:2006cv00843
2006-10-03
Continue reading "Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through October 8, 2006)" »
Copyright Lawsuit Filing Update (through January 30, 2007)
Subscription information can be found here: Welcome To RSS Mojo.
ACheck21, LLC v. Foster et al
azdce
2:2007cv00210
2007-01-26
Activision Publishing Inc v. Tam
cacdce
2:2007cv00464
2007-01-18
Airframe Systems, Inc. v. Raytheon Company
madce
1:2007cv10142
2007-01-26
Continue reading "Copyright Lawsuit Filing Update (through January 30, 2007)" »
Federal Circuit Proposes Requiring Digital Briefs
Posted by Stephen M. Nipper at February 2, 2007 04:40 PM
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit proposes to amend its rules by adopting Federal Circuit Rules 28(a)(15) and (16), Rule 28(j), Rule 30(k), and Rules 31(b), (e), and (f); and by deleting Federal Circuit Rule 32(e). These rule changes would require the filing of a digital version of every brief and appendix filed by a party represented by counsel, unless counsel certifies that submission of a brief or appendix in digital format is not practical or would constitute hardship…
More information: http://www.fedcir.gov/rule_28_jan_22_2007.pdf
J. Matthew Buchanan 
Stephen M. Nipper 
Douglas Sorocco 