Today we continue our weekly installment highlighting the best of the patent blogosphere from the past week. Highlights include a lot of news and updates from the USPTO! If there are any patent blogs you think should be highlighted by our Top 5, please comment on this post and we’ll check them out.
1) Intellogist: A Quick Guide to Changes on the USPTO Homepage – The USPTO homepage’s familiarity to any patent or trademark researcher facilitates the ease of their site navigation. However, this post explains how the current USPTO homepage will be officially retired on February 29, 2012 (yep, it’s a leap year folks), and it also shares the differences between the new homepage and the old one.
2) PatentDocs: USPTO Proposes Rules Changes for Implementing AIA Provisions — Statute of Limitations Provisions for Office Disciplinary Proceedings – This post addresses address the USPTO’s notice regarding “Implementation of Statute of Limitations Provisions for Office Disciplinary Proceedings”.
3) IPWatchdog: Accelerated Examination is Better Examination – As a guest post by Mark Nowotarski of Markets, Patents & Alliances, LLC, this post explains the USPTO’s 12 month accelerated examination program and shares the perspectives of patent practitioners whom have used the program.
4) Patently-O: The Role of In-House Patent Counsel in Prosecuting Patents – This post considers when a law firm is hired to prosecute patents, whether the in-house patent counsel should be included in the list of patent attorneys with power of attorney over pending patent applications.
5) Patents Post Grant: Evidence of Ongoing Patent Reexamination at Trial – This post examines whether a willfulness determination opens the door to prejudice, and how admitting reexamination evidence into trial has been viewed differently by certain courts.
Tags: accelerated examination standard, AIA provisions, in house patent counsel, Patent Reexamination, USPTO, USPTO homepage
I posted a comment on IPWatchdog in response to the above noted article on the Accelerated Examination (AE) program. I am a pro se applicant, and I would be surprised if similar experiences are uncommon among pro se applicants, regardless of whether they are applying under the AE program.
Basically, the USPTO denied my AE petition for a trivial “error,” claiming that my application was not “in condition for examination.” They have held my petition for reconsideration of this denial for almost six months and have not yet responded to it.
More detail is provided in my comment on IPWatchdog.