Saturday, November 26, 2016

Introduction

by Steve Reiss of www.reisspatents.com and ScienBizIP, PC.

These notes have been a gradual growth commencing twenty-five years ago and kept up to date by the adding of current constructions. From these the reader gets a view from the inside as well as from the outside of "The Office".

Our Patent Office Practice is still incomparably the best in the world. Let us keep it so.

The difficulties" of the judges in comprehending the facts involved in patent cases, which have been cumulative with the increasing complexity of the Arts and Sciences, have somewhat weakened the authority of their opinions. Pending legislation proposes to remedy this.

E. J. STODDARD (member of the Detroit bar).

May 1, 1920.

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Reminder on Design v. Utility Patents

by Steve Reiss - now at stevenreiss@sbp-us.com

Just a reminder on US patent terms --

Utility patent terms are 20 years from the earliest priority date. Maintenance fees are due at 3½, 7½ and 11½ years after grant of the patent.

Design patent terms are 15 years from grant. Design patents do not have maintenance fees.

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

From My Antique Patent Document Collection – Message From James Madison

I have an extensive collection of antique and significantly historic patent related books and papers. From time to time, I like to show these off.

At this time, I am showing a brief pamphlet, a message from President James Madison to Congress.

Madison057

The message was dated 1816.

Madison058

And as can be seen, the message was tabled and not further acted upon.

The text of the message is set out below:

Madison059

For an easier read, I reproduce the text below.
With a view to the more convenient management of the important and growing business connected with the grant of exclusive rights to inventors and authors, I recommend the establishment of a distinct office, within the department of state, to be charged therewith, under a director with a salary adequate to his services, and with the privilege of franking communications by mail to the office. I recommend also, that further restraints be imposed on the issue of patents to wrongful claimants, and further guards provided against fraudulent exactions of fees by persons possessed of patents.
JAMES MADISON.

Let me know if you would like to see any of my other historical materials.

Monday, May 30, 2016

That’s Absolutely It


This is it folks.

The federal patent laws do not create any affirmative right to make, use, or sell anything. As the Supreme Court has stated, “the franchise which the patent grants, consists altogether in the right to exclude every one from making, using, or vending the thing patented, without the permission of the patentee. This is all that he obtains by the patent.”

Leatherman Tool Group v. Cooper Indus., 131 F.3d 1011, 1015 (Fed. Cir. 1997)

Friday, May 27, 2016

American Patent History


by Steve Reiss - now at stevenreiss@sbp-us.com

It is obvious that many of the provisions of our patent act are derived from the principles and practice which have prevailed in the construction of the law of England in relation to patents .Pennock v. Dialogue, 27 U.S. 1, 14 (U.S. 1829)

So You Want to Be a Pro Se?

by Steve Reiss - now at stevenreiss@sbp-us.com




 Despite being vigorously counseled against the idea, some inventors will decide that they are going to self-file, known in the patent world as filing “pro se”. That is their decision to make. All patent practitioners can then do, is accept their decision and warn them about the potential negative effects of their decision. Or, if asked, we can take over their prosecution.

by Steve Reiss - now at stevenreiss@sbp-us.com

Patents and Politics

by Steve Reiss - now at stevenreiss@sbp-us.com

Federation of Musician Union Member 10081167, San Bernardino, local 47, Los Angeles, CA.

PS: I am really a small business entity because of the lack of money. And, I feel it is because of being thought of as the other political candidate’s opponent. . . .’ .

PPS: I, Larry K. Reed, won’t: allow any person to look either similar or identical as my own facial features or former photos. Furthermore. I refuse to allow any person to become me or my facial features in the event of my death: or by any method of resurrection. cloning. imaging, reincarnation, or by looking like a look alike.

WOW.