Prosecution Luncheon

Patent

September 2016

Calendar

Indiana State Bar AssociationAnnual Meeting- Sept. 28-30– Annual Business Meeting of IP Section

THURSDAY, SEPT. 29- 10:45 - 11:15 a.m.

– IP Issue Spotting for General Practice Attorneys (1 hr. CLE) THURSDAY, SEPT. 29

- 11:15 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.- Speakers: Christopher A. Brown; and- Matthew R. Schantz

Calendar

Indy Bar• Patents and Trademarks in Europe Post

BREXIT: What Now and What's Next for the European Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) after BREXIT – Thursday, September 29, noon to 1 p.m.– IndyBar Education Center

Electronic Copies of Patent Assignments

USPTO Financial Manager• Starting October 17th - “EFS-Web customers

who use a deposit account or EFT for paying fees must use Financial Manager to store the payment method and to manage user access to the payment method.

• “Starting Oct. 17, the USPTO will process all EFS-Web payments via the new USPTO payment page only. All deposit accounts and EFTs must be stored in Financial Manager and customers must have Fee Payer permission in order to make a payment.”– September 15, 2016 Patent Alert

Interim Authentication Method: EFS-Web and Private PAIR • “A new authentication option for EFS-Web and

Private PAIR users is scheduled to be available in October 2016. This interim authentication solution provides a new, plug-in-free option for users to authenticate, and will expand browser options until a new, permanent solution is in place. While you can continue to authenticate using the existing method (Java Applet), you will be given an option to switch to the new method.”– September 13, 2016 Patent Alert

USPTO- Notice/Request

“Request for Comments and Notice of Roundtable Event on Leveraging Electronic Resources To Retrieve Information From Applicant’s Other Applications and Streamline Patent Issuance.”  

• Written Comments Due: October 28, 2016

USPTO- Notice/Request1. In balancing the goals of examination quality and efficiency, should the USPTO monitor other applications, besides domestic parent and counterpart foreign applications, for relevant information located therein for consideration in the instant U.S. application? If so, which other applications should be monitored (e.g., siblings, applications involving the same or related technology, etc.)?

USPTO- Notice/Request2. What is the most convenient way to bring an application to the USPTO’s attention that should be monitored for information during the examination of a U.S. application (e.g., automated system, applicant notifies the USPTO, etc.)? 3. How should the USPTO determine which information from the monitored applications to provide examiners while ensuring they are not overburdened with immaterial and marginally relevant information?

USPTO- Notice/Request4. If the USPTO were to import information from applicant’s other applications, how should the USPTO document the information imported into the image file wrapper of the instant U.S. application? For example, should the record reflect which domestic parent or counterpart foreign application the information was imported from, the date that the information was imported, and whether the examiner considered the imported information?

USPTO- Notice/Request

5. Taking into consideration the information that is publicly available in PAIR, what information should be part of a patent? For example, should prior art references and classification information still be listed on the front page of a patent?

EU Court of Justice Hyperlink Copyright Ruling

Greenstijl

(“News” Website) Hyperlink

EU Court of Justice Hyperlink Copyright Ruling

Greenstijl

(“News” Website)

Hyperlink

EU Court of Justice Hyperlink Copyright Ruling

Greenstijl

(“News” Website)

Hyperlink

EU Court of Justice Hyperlink Copyright Ruling• The posting of a hyperlink on a website to

works protected by copyright and published without the author’s consent on another website does not constitute a ‘communication to the public’ when the person who posts that link does not seek financial gain and acts without knowledge that those works have been published illegally.

• In contrast, if those hyperlinks are provided for profit, knowledge of the illegality of the publication on the other website must be presumed.

GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV (Playboy)

OIG Examiners’ Time and Attendance Report• Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report

– August 2016

OIG Examiners’ Time and Attendance ReportFor the 9-month period, the OIG identified approximately 138,000 unsupported hours, equating to nearly $8.8 million in potential waste.• Approximately 28% of the total unsupported

time consisted of overtime hours.• 296 of all examiners covered in this analysis

had or more unsupported hours and accounted for 39% of the total unsupported hours.

• 226 of the 296 examiners accounted for over 42,000 unsupported hours and also received above-average annual performance ratings.

OIG Examiners’ Time and Attendance ReportFor the 15-month period, the OIG identified over 288,000 unsupported hours, equating to over $8.3 million in potential waste.• 415 of all examiners covered in this analysis

had 10% or more unsupported hours and accounted for 43% of the total unsupported hours.

• 310 of those 415 examiners received above-average annual performance ratings and accounted for nearly 98,000 unsupported hours.

OIG Examiners’ Time and Attendance ReportThe OIG also found that the USPTO policies limit the agency's ability to prevent and detect time and attendance abuse. For example:• The USPTO does not require teleworkers to

log in to their computers on workdays if they do not telework full-time.

• Although the majority of examiners with unsupported hours received average or better performance ratings, the USPTO requires that only poor performers provide their supervisors with work schedules.

OIG Examiners’ Time and Attendance ReportContinued…

• The USPTO does not require that on-campus examiners use their USPTO-issued ID badges to exit through the access control turnstiles during weekday working hours.

• The data suggest that USPTO's production goals are out of date and do not reflect current efficiencies.

OIG Examiners’ Time and Attendance ReportOIG recommendations- USPTO should:

1) reevaluate its examiner production goals for each art unit and revise them, to the extent necessary, to reflect efficiencies in work processes from automation and other enhancements;

2) require all examiners to provide supervisors with their works schedules, regardless of performance and ratings;

OIG Examiners’ Time and Attendance ReportOIG recommendations- USPTO should:

3) reinstate the USPTO requirement that employees use their USPTO issued ID badges to exit the USPTO facilities through the controlled-access turnstiles during weekday working hours;

OIG Examiners’ Time and Attendance ReportOIG recommendations- USPTO should:

4) require all teleworkers to remain logged into the USPTO network during their working hours;

5) review its policies, procedures, and practices pertaining to overtime hours to identify and eliminate the areas susceptible to abuse; and

6) consider deploying SOHO routers to all teleworkers.

Prosecution Luncheon

Patent

September 2016