Posts Tagged ‘epo’

It’s STILL Kinda Like Dating: Unified Patent Fiasco Keeps Continuing

Thursday, 02 February, 2012 08:52 Written by Danie Roy 0 Comments

Danie Roy

Okay, to explain this one, I’m going to have to recap by taking you back to younger days… middle or high school will do. I want you to remember the most popular guy in school: he was probably the star sports player, dashingly handsome, girls wanted to be with him, and guys wanted to be him. Now that you remember that guy, imagine his name is Mr. Headquarters.

Yes, I know, you remember this part, but play along a little longer. Now remember the three most popular girls in school: they were probably pretty, from relatively wealthy families, and cheerleaders. They probably were also all friends (or frenemies) and regularly fought over the most popular guys in school. Now name them London, Paris, and Munich.

If this is Mr. Headquarters, it all makes sense, really.

“Wait a minute,” you protest, “you’ve already written this piece!” you’re probably shouting at the screen. Well… sort of. I wrote a piece explaining the fight over Mr. Headquarters before almost 2 months ago… when the end of the fight was supposedly in sight. In fact, this fight was meant to be resolved almost half a year ago and this plan has been in the works to the tune of three decades. Plus, a lot has happened in 2 months. Granted, a lot HASN’T happened in 2 months, either, but you know what I mean.

For starters, Italy actually got over the whole “you don’t speak my language” thing and has decided to join the party. At one point, it was speculated that she would do this on the condition of going to the party with Mr. Headquarters, but that clearly didn’t happen.

So now…poor Spain is sitting out, Belgium is offering to hold Mr. Headquarters while the other girls duke it out, and we’re still a ways away from getting the party actually started.

It’s not just kinda like dating, it’s EXACTLY like dating.

It’s Kinda Like Dating-Italy, Spain, and the EPO

Wednesday, 01 June, 2011 15:33 Written by Danie Roy 2 Comments

by Danie Roy

 

I will never forget this one history teacher I had.  Big guy, football coach, reeeeeeally thick southern accent.  He had a favorite analogy for governments and all major historical events, and it seemed to fit perfectly every time.  The big analogy was always cued by a phrase that I use to this day: “it’s kinda like dating…”

For example, let’s say that the European Union Patent Office (EPO) is the guy, and Italy and Spain are two lovely ladies.  Well, right now, the girls are having a fight with him, crying all night and writing in their diaries that he’s horrible and he never loved them.

Of course, in a relationship, the guy is either to blame or going to be blamed.  So what did he do?  Call the girls fat?  Never call?  Forget their birthdays?  Cheat on them?  Reject them?

Well, the girls say that he just doesn’t understand them!  He doesn’t speak their language!  I mean he literally doesn’t speak their language.  Italy and Spain are claiming that the EPO is discriminating against them by only operating in English, French, and German.

I can see their point (sort of): translation isn’t cheap, and if you’re going to translate a patent application… well, what’s the going rate for 100 pages of translation, give or take 50 or so?

The first thought that comes to my mind is: “well, what about all the other countries in the EU that speak other languages?  Are they all going to band together and seek patent equality for all?”

The second thought is “you have got to be kidding me.”

English, German, and French are currently among the most common languages of commerce.  English, thanks to the British Empire of decades past and American love of the limelight; German, courtesy of WWII, great banking and pretty darn good engineering; and French, because of their contributions to art, fashion, modern lifestyles in general, and standardized measurements.

Before passing final judgment, it’s best to make sure you have all facts available, so I made sure to check the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) list of publishing languages.  The list, in alphabetical order: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

I am not surprised to see that Italian wasn’t on the list but Spanish was.  Italian is a lovely language, but not particularly common.  Plenty of chefs and residents of Little Italy speak it fairly well, but, otherwise, Italian is mostly restricted to Italy.  Spanish, on the other hand, is spoken throughout North and South America.

So does Spain have a legitimate claim?  Well… sort of.  The PCT applies worldwide; the EPO applies to the EU.  I distinctly recall a friend of mine in international business telling me that Spanish was pretty useful to know in the Western Hemisphere, but it wasn’t widely spoken beyond our half of the world and lady Spain.

A more appropriate use of their assets.

Finally, my point: EPO isn’t going to change for the ladies.  Even if he does, the girls will not be happy with him.  Why?  Because if the EPO gives in to Spain and Italy, he has to eventually give in to everyone in the EU.  When that happens, the EPO will be taking on the hiring (and cost) of translators for all of those languages.  And, no, the EPO will not be eating that cost.  Applications will continue to cost more and more until finally…

Filing for a patent costs more than we started with.  Oops.

ITS ALWAYS CASUAL FRIDAY AT THE EPO-INFORMAL CLARIFICATION

Tuesday, 29 March, 2011 18:04 Written by danieldavidson 0 Comments

By Daniel Davidson

In an effort to better the quality of searches as the International Searching Authority, the European Patent Office is stepping out of their Sunday’s best and into their Tom Selleck’s best.  The EPO has announced that they will be seeking “informal” clarification from applicants that file under the Patent Cooperation Treaty.  If the drawings, specifications, or claims are not up to par with the requirements so that a quality search can be made, an examiner will contact the applicant (or applicant’s attorney of record) and ask for specification in any area that may need clarification.

This effort is regarded as informal because the EPO is under no obligation to contact the applicant for clarification and the applicant is under no obligation to respond to such a request, but as I am sure you have guessed or common sense has kicked in and said, “why wouldn’t you want to respond and have a better quality search performed,” it would be in the applicant’s best interest to respond.  The EPO has indicated that the initial communication will be by telephone or by communication, likely through fax.  As would be the case with the USPTO (in an interview summary as the USPTO calls it), the minutes of the communication will be summarized and sent to the applicant.  If no clarification was made during the telephone consultation, a time limit will be indicated in the written communication summary in which the applicant will need to respond with clarifying statements.  Still, there is no obligation to respond to this request.  It will only result in a sub-par search which I’m sure every applicant wants after paying the fees associated with a PCT application.

The EPO has elected to go with the two week response time from the mailing date which can be done either through further telephone conferences or in formal writing, sent via fax.  (I didn’t know people still used faxes?)  Maybe they will catch on to the email buzz I’ve been hearing about.  I hear email is the new black.  Nonetheless, even if an applicant misses the two week deadline but a response to the “informal” request is received, the examiner may still take into consideration any clarification received as long as it is before the completion of the International Search Report.

The EPO has reminded applicants that this is not an invitation to amend claims because that will need to be done later with the International Bureau.  The newly implemented process will be applied to applications filed on or after April 1, 2011 and will also apply to applications that have not yet received an International Search Report.

This is a fine extension of love from our neighbors to the east, and I’m sure will be appreciated, in most cases, because as I iterated above, it is not at all cheap to file a PCT application. 

I wonder if the EPO has participated in Mustache March to prepare for their new attire?  Cheers.

Classic Rewind: Can McDonald’s really sue you for how you make your sandwich?

Friday, 06 November, 2009 05:58 Written by jfischer1975 0 Comments

This story was originally posted back in April of 2009 on The Legal Satyricon.

by Jason Fischer

Short Answer:  No.  Probably not.

baby_sandwich

I call this one "the McBaby."  Should I try to patent it before McDonald's does?

McDonald’s Corp. is getting some recent attention in the blogosphere for a patent application, originally filed in late 2004, which describes its “Method and Apparatus for Making a Sandwich.”  What’s interesting to me about this news item is the array of different reactions that various people have to this kind of story.  Personally, it makes me laugh that McDonald’s paid a patent attorney an *expletive/deleted*-ton of money to write and prosecute a fifty-four page app, comprising twenty-three pages of drawings and flow charts and describing, in painful detail, how one might go about simultaneously preparing sandwich garnishes while “heating a pre-assembled meat and/or cheese filling”.  Clearly, my reaction is the same as the folks’ over at PatentlySilly.com.

The other response that I quite frequently see is one of outrage or consternation.  “How can they claim a patent for that?”  “Will they be able to sue me for how I make my sandwich?”  “This is what’s wrong with the U.S. patent system.”  “Yadda, yadda, yadda.”  “I love lamp.”  You get the idea.  This was Marc Randazza’s reaction when we had a conversation on the subject a few days ago.  Now I don’t mean to criticize or belittle anyone who has this initial reaction (obviously, Marc is no IP n00b), but it exposes the reactor as someone who doesn’t have a firm grasp on the intricacies of patent law.  This is nothing to be ashamed of, because the majority of the world doesn’t either.  Without digging into the details of each individual case, it’s easy to go off half cocked.

Read more...

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 05, 2012

Bad Behavior has blocked 1586 access attempts in the last 7 days.