by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)
Our Patent Office Practice is still incomparably the best in the world. Let us keep it so.
E. J. STODDARD (member of the Detroit bar).
May 1, 1920.
Saturday, November 26, 2016
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.
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.
The message was dated 1816.
And as can be seen, the message was tabled and not further acted upon.
The text of the message is set out below:
For an easier read, I reproduce the text below.
Let me know if you would like to see any of my other historical materials.
At this time, I am showing a brief pamphlet, a message from President James Madison to Congress.
The message was dated 1816.
And as can be seen, the message was tabled and not further acted upon.
The text of the message is set out below:
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Flying High With US Des. 135,749
by Steve Reiss - now at stevenreiss@sbp-us.com
The Curtiss P-40 Warhawk is an American single-engined, single-seat, all-metal fighter and ground-attack aircraft that first flew in 1938. The P-40 design was a modification of the previous Curtiss P-36 Hawk which reduced development time and enabled a rapid entry into production and operational service. The Warhawk was used by most Allied powers during World War II, and remained in frontline service until the end of the war. It was the third most-produced American fighter, after the P-51 and P-47; by November 1944, when production of the P-40 ceased, 13,738 had been built,[4] all at Curtiss-Wright Corporation‘s main production facilities at Buffalo, New York. See more on the P-40.
The Curtiss P-40 Warhawk is an American single-engined, single-seat, all-metal fighter and ground-attack aircraft that first flew in 1938. The P-40 design was a modification of the previous Curtiss P-36 Hawk which reduced development time and enabled a rapid entry into production and operational service. The Warhawk was used by most Allied powers during World War II, and remained in frontline service until the end of the war. It was the third most-produced American fighter, after the P-51 and P-47; by November 1944, when production of the P-40 ceased, 13,738 had been built,[4] all at Curtiss-Wright Corporation‘s main production facilities at Buffalo, New York. See more on the P-40.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Portion of Lanham Act Section 2(a) Declared Unconstitutional
by Steve Reiss - now at stevenreiss@sbp-us.com
Congress enacted the Lanham Act in 1946 to provide a national system for registering and protecting trade-marks used in interstate and foreign commerce.
The Lanham Act, over 70 years old, has rarely been in the public’s eye. The Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit, In re Tam (en banc), an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board noted that:
Congress enacted the Lanham Act in 1946 to provide a national system for registering and protecting trade-marks used in interstate and foreign commerce.
The Lanham Act, over 70 years old, has rarely been in the public’s eye. The Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit, In re Tam (en banc), an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board noted that:
Only in the last several decades has the disparagement provision [15 USC 1052(a)] become a more frequent ground of rejection or cancellation of trademarks.And now, the Federal Circuit has spoken. In In re Tam, the en banc court has made it clear:
The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks.It cannot refuse to register marks because it concludes that such marks will be disparaging to others. The government regulation at issue amounts to viewpoint discrimination, and under the strict scrutiny review appropriate for government regulation of message or viewpoint, we conclude that the disparagement proscription of §2(a) is unconstitutional.As to the long history of the Lanham Act and its ‘sudden’ unconstitutionality, Judge Lourie says in dissent:
First, one wonders why a statute that dates back nearly seventy years—one that has been continuously applied—is suddenly unconstitutional as violating the First Amendment. Is there no such thing as settled law,normally referred to as stare decisis. Since the inception of the federal trademark registration program in 1905, the federal government has declined to issue registrations of disparaging marks.
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Not All Technology is Breathtaking...
by Steve Reiss of www.reisspatents.com
Marconi v. Shoemaker, 1907 U. D., 131 O. G. 1939.
Marconi v. Shoemaker, 1907 U. D., 131 O. G. 1939.
A machine may be crude in construction but if it contains all the essential elements of the invention of the issue, and in its operation successfully demonstrates its practical efficacy and utility, reduction to practice is accomplished.So, next time someone complains that a patent does not contain rocket science, remind them that they need not have to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)