Comments for Patent Authority http://patentauthority.com Domestic and International Patents, Trademarks, and IP Strategy Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:23:49 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on Oct 28 is the Last Day to Block Registration of Your Trademark as a .XXX Domain Name by Lisa Willis http://patentauthority.com/2011/10/block-registration-of-trademark-as-xxx-domain/comment-page-1/#comment-14459 Lisa Willis Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:23:49 +0000 http://patentauthority.com/?p=709#comment-14459 Btw, some people disagree but "trademarked" is not a preferred term because people use it to mean different things. When clients say "trademarked" they usually mean "registered" so I avoid using it. Technically, the word trademark, as used in the Lanham Act anyway, is a noun. Btw, some people disagree but “trademarked” is not a preferred term because people use it to mean different things. When clients say “trademarked” they usually mean “registered” so I avoid using it. Technically, the word trademark, as used in the Lanham Act anyway, is a noun.

]]> Comment on Oct 28 is the Last Day to Block Registration of Your Trademark as a .XXX Domain Name by Kate Hutchinson http://patentauthority.com/2011/10/block-registration-of-trademark-as-xxx-domain/comment-page-1/#comment-14458 Kate Hutchinson Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:53:17 +0000 http://patentauthority.com/?p=709#comment-14458 I'd like to add to this a note about the 10 year time given for the blocks of Sunrise B. Sunrise B blocking lasts for the life of ICM Registry's contract with ICANN, which is currently set at 10 years. At the end of 10 years, if the contract from ICANN is renewed with ICM, the block will continue through that extension. I’d like to add to this a note about the 10 year time given for the blocks of Sunrise B. Sunrise B blocking lasts for the life of ICM Registry’s contract with ICANN, which is currently set at 10 years. At the end of 10 years, if the contract from ICANN is renewed with ICM, the block will continue through that extension.

]]> Comment on Dropping Acid… A Cookbook by Secret Home Remedies For Acid Reflux http://patentauthority.com/2010/11/dropping-acid-reflux-diet-cookbook/comment-page-1/#comment-13294 Secret Home Remedies For Acid Reflux Thu, 07 Jul 2011 07:45:49 +0000 http://patentauthority.com/?p=435#comment-13294 The FDA released a press release on the 25 May 2010 warning against the dangers of taking acid reflux medications long term (longer than 12 months) Our body needs stomach acid to break down our food so that the body can extract vital nutrients and by blocking the production of stomach acid or neutralizing stomach acid we rob the body of vital nutrients. There are some foods which assist in the production of stomach acid - maybe this is what the medical fraternity should be promoting The FDA released a press release on the 25 May 2010 warning against the dangers of taking acid reflux medications long term (longer than 12 months)

Our body needs stomach acid to break down our food so that the body can extract vital nutrients and by blocking the production of stomach acid or neutralizing stomach acid we rob the body of vital nutrients.

There are some foods which assist in the production of stomach acid – maybe this is what the medical fraternity should be promoting

]]> Comment on Divisional Applications, Europe, and the Paris Convention by cees mulder http://patentauthority.com/2009/02/divisional-applications-europe-paris-convention/comment-page-1/#comment-13272 cees mulder Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:17:01 +0000 http://patentauthority.com/?p=262#comment-13272 Rule 36 EPC has been thorougly amended by the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organization in order to reduce/limit the number of divisional applications filed by applicants. The text displayed on this webpage reflects the text applicable before April 1, 2010. In addition, the new text of Rule 36(1) EPC with respect to mandatory filing of a divisional application in response to a non-unity objection by the search examiner (setting a time limit of 24 months) is a direct violation of the corresponding Article 4G(1) of the Paris Covention - because the EPC imposes "conditions" for filing such divisionals which is not allowed according to Article 4G(1) Paris Convention. Only Article 4G(2) mentions "conditions" under which Office will authorize the divisional. The latter case relates to an applicant filing a divisional of his own volition. Rule 36 EPC has been thorougly amended by the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organization in order to reduce/limit the number of divisional applications filed by applicants.
The text displayed on this webpage reflects the text applicable before April 1, 2010.
In addition, the new text of Rule 36(1) EPC with respect to mandatory filing of a divisional application in response to a non-unity objection by the search examiner (setting a time limit of 24 months) is a direct violation of the corresponding Article 4G(1) of the Paris Covention – because the EPC imposes “conditions” for filing such divisionals which is not allowed according to Article 4G(1) Paris Convention.
Only Article 4G(2) mentions “conditions” under which Office will authorize the divisional. The latter case relates to an applicant filing a divisional of his own volition.

]]> Comment on Old Robots by patentauthority http://patentauthority.com/2011/02/old-robots/comment-page-1/#comment-13271 patentauthority Mon, 07 Mar 2011 16:01:25 +0000 http://patentauthority.com/?p=475#comment-13271 @catman: Good find! More info: http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0849/ @catman: Good find! More info: http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0849/

]]> Comment on Old Robots by Harold Sims http://patentauthority.com/2011/02/old-robots/comment-page-1/#comment-13270 Harold Sims Sun, 06 Mar 2011 20:23:29 +0000 http://patentauthority.com/?p=475#comment-13270 Who can tune up my delux petster cat? Harold hsims@catman2.org Who can tune up my delux petster cat?

Harold hsims@catman2.org

]]> Comment on Patent Litigation Trends – It Pays to be a Patent Troll by soylent http://patentauthority.com/2010/02/it-pays-to-be-a-patent-troll/comment-page-1/#comment-13216 soylent Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:30:25 +0000 http://patentauthority.com/?p=362#comment-13216 Rambus has never been anything but a patent troll. The core of their business model is the use of submarine patents. Internal Rambus documents released as part of their court case in 2001 clearly demonstrated an intention of using submarine patents. Rambus has never been anything but a patent troll. The core of their business model is the use of submarine patents. Internal Rambus documents released as part of their court case in 2001 clearly demonstrated an intention of using submarine patents.

]]> Comment on What is a Statutory Invention Registration (SIR)? by William Croft http://patentauthority.com/2005/03/statutory-invention-registration-sir/comment-page-1/#comment-13214 William Croft Tue, 06 Jul 2010 04:07:16 +0000 /?p=23#comment-13214 An excellent document covering the subject of Defensive Publication comparing the various strategies is at http://pdf.dec.org/pdf_docs/PNACS088.pdf . ("Defensive publishing: a strategy for maintaining intellectual property as public goods", Development Experience Clearinghouse, USAID, 2002) An alternative to the SIR is to use one of the online services such as http://www.ip.com , which patent examiners search when looking for "prior art". As of July 2010 the filing fee there is only $225, a relative bargain compared to the SIR. That same company also offers an online "lab notebook" service which archives and time stamps your entries in case such documentation is needed. An excellent document covering the subject of Defensive Publication comparing the various strategies is at http://pdf.dec.org/pdf_docs/PNACS088.pdf . (“Defensive publishing: a strategy for maintaining intellectual property as public goods”, Development Experience Clearinghouse, USAID, 2002)

An alternative to the SIR is to use one of the online services such as http://www.ip.com , which patent examiners search when looking for “prior art”. As of July 2010 the filing fee there is only $225, a relative bargain compared to the SIR. That same company also offers an online “lab notebook” service which archives and time stamps your entries in case such documentation is needed.

]]> Comment on Can I patent a new version of an existing product? by Robert Sharp http://patentauthority.com/2006/01/can-i-patent-a-new-version-of-an-existing-product/comment-page-1/#comment-13200 Robert Sharp Thu, 06 May 2010 01:45:28 +0000 http://www.patentauthority.com/blog/?p=44#comment-13200 What if I wanted to package an existing product for a different use other than it's current widely-know use. For instance, I've seen tennis balls that have been packaged and marketed as dog toys, Is that patentable? Or what would be a way that I could protect my idea? A trademark? What if I wanted to package an existing product for a different use other than it’s current widely-know use. For instance, I’ve seen tennis balls that have been packaged and marketed as dog toys, Is that patentable? Or what would be a way that I could protect my idea? A trademark?

]]> Comment on Apple Buys iPad Trademark from Fujitsu by EP http://patentauthority.com/2010/03/apple-buys-ipad-trademark-from-fujitsu/comment-page-1/#comment-12867 EP Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:32:11 +0000 http://patentauthority.com/?p=412#comment-12867 Would be helpful if you would cover the truly interesting aspect of this which is why is this not an unenforceable assignment in gross, since Fujitsu is presumably not selling Apple its whole business related to its iPad; rather, it is simple selling the naked trademark. Would be helpful if you would cover the truly interesting aspect of this which is why is this not an unenforceable assignment in gross, since Fujitsu is presumably not selling Apple its whole business related to its iPad; rather, it is simple selling the naked trademark.

]]>