Tag: Patents

Corset Stays - Public Use vs. Public Disclosure in Patents

Public Use Bar

Public Use Bar: A Cautionary Tale for Innovators

For anyone in the world of Patents, the terms “public use” and “public disclosure” are critical—and often misunderstood. 35 U.S.C. § 102 defines these terms and their implications for patentability.

Grace Period

A key point to remember:  the U.S. has a unique one-year grace period for filing a patent application after a public disclosure. In most other countries, any public disclosure can immediately bar you from obtaining a Patent. This is a crucial distinction that can make or break your intellectual property.

Defining the Public Use Bar

What exactly constitutes “public use bar”?  Can a use be “public” even when it’s hidden from the public eye?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1881 decision in Egbert v. Lippmann (104 U.S. 333) provides a fascinating and enduring lesson. The inventor in this case created improved corset steels in 1855, giving them to a single individual to use. Even though the steels were never publicly seen, the Court ruled that this was a public use. The inventor’s subsequent patent, filed years later, was therefore invalidated.

The Egbert Court’s conclusions still stand as a stark warning:

  • A single public use is enough. You don’t need to have a crowd of people using your invention to trigger the bar.
  • Unrestricted use is public use. If you give or sell your invention to another person without any confidentiality agreements or restrictions, that use is considered public.
  • However, experimental use is an exception. A use that is open to public view but is made in good faith solely for testing and experimental purposes does not count as a public use.

Egbert serves as a powerful reminder: the definition of “public use” is far broader than most people realize.

Protect Your Innovation

Don’t let a seemingly private action become a public forfeiture.

35 U.S.C. 102, in part, reads:

(a)    Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—

           (1)     the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or

          (2)    the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

(b)    Exceptions.—

          (1)     Disclosures made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—

                    (A)    the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or

                    (B)    the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.

Get Help With Your Invention

Ask Us Anything…about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

The 66 Claims - A Patent Infringement Case

66 Claims: A Tale of Patent Infringement

The 66 Claims

This is a tale of what happened to the 66 claims.

A, B and C were officers and engineers for ABC company located in Cincinnati. In 2022, A, B and C assigned their interests in their joint invention to ABC company. In 2022, ABC company filed the Patent Application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The original ABC Patent Application had 66 claims.

What Happened With the 66 Claims

In 2024, A and B were playing a best ball golf tournament in Louisville. The other twosome happened to be X and Z, who were officers of XYZ company located in Indianapolis. Before starting the back nine, all players took a break at the clubhouse. By the thirteenth hole, A and B were talking about their joint invention.  X and Z listened closely.

In early 2025, ABC company became aware that XYZ company was selling an XYZ invention that appeared to be identical to the ABC company’s invention. ABC had yet to receive regulatory approval for use of its invention. Somehow, XYZ received regulatory approval and made it to market before ABC.

The 66 Claims of the ABC Company’s Application

In the summer of 2025, ABC received the First Office Action from the Examiner regarding the 66 claims. In the Office Action, the Examiner rejected the first 60 claims of the 66 claims but indicated that the last six claims were allowable if some of the language of those six claims was tweaked. Since A, B and C were engineers and not patent attorneys, A, B and C opted to seek legal assistance.

What Did the Law Firm Do With ABC’s Patent Application?

  • First – the firm determined what product XYZ sold.
  • Second – the firm tweaked the last six claims to make them allowable while at the same time ensuring that those six claims read on XYZ product.
  • Third – the firm filed a Response to the Office Action cancelling the first 60 claims and requesting the Examiner allow the last six claims to mature into a Patent.
  • Fourth – the firm prepared another five Patent Applications claiming priority/benefit to the first ABC Application. Each of those five Patent Applications contained 20 claims.  Three of the Applications were Continuations, and one of those included less structures to achieve the same result. Two of the Applications were Continuation-In-Part Applications that included additional structures that ABC had invented since the filing of the first ABC Company Application.

35 U.S.C. § 120 allows an Applicant to claim the benefit of an earlier Patent Application if the earlier Patent Application is still pending.

What Was the Outcome of the 66 Claims?

  • Before the first ABC Company Application was abandoned, the original first 60 claims morphed into five additional Patent Applications having a total of 100 claims.
  • Original claims 61-66 were the basis for the first Patent. ABC sued XYZ for infringement.
  • Before going to trial and because of the distinct possibility of intentional infringement and treble damages, XYZ agreed to allow ABC to select the infringement damages calculation, e.g., ABC’s losses, such as lost profits or a reasonable royalty, or an accounting of the infringer’s profits.
  • XYZ ceases to use, offer for sale, sale, or make ABC’s patented invention.

Ask Us Anything… about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are in the greater Cincinnati Indianapolis, Lexington or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Micro business requirements by USPTO

Micro Entity and the US Patent Office

What is the Benefit of Being Certified as a Micro Entity?

The United States Patent Office’s (USPTO) fees’ structures are segregated into micro entity, small entity and large entity categories. Government fees for small entities are generally less than other entities’ fees.

USPTO fees periodically change, and it is advisable to check the USPTO website for current rates.

How does an Entity Qualify for Micro Entity Status?

37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1.29 defines what entities qualify for micro entity status. In part, 37 C.F.R. 1.29 reads as follows:

(a) To establish micro entity status under this paragraph, the applicant must certify that:

(1) The applicant qualifies as a small entity as defined in § 1.27 without relying on a government use license exception under § 1.27(a)(4);

(2) Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor has been named as the inventor or a joint inventor on more than four previously filed patent applications, other than applications filed in another country, provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), or international applications for which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a) was not paid;

(3) Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor, in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, had a gross income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 61(a)), exceeding three times the median household income for that preceding calendar year, as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census; and

(4) Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor has assigned, granted, or conveyed, nor is under an obligation by contract or law to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the application concerned to an entity that, in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, had a gross income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, exceeding three times the median household income for that preceding calendar year, as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census.

(b) An applicant, inventor, or joint inventor is not considered to be named on a previously filed application for purposes of paragraph (a)(2) of this section if the applicant, inventor, or joint inventor has assigned, or is under an obligation by contract or law to assign, all ownership rights in the application as the result of the applicant’s, inventor’s, or joint inventor’s previous employment.

(c) If an applicant’s, inventor’s, joint inventor’s, or entity’s gross income in the preceding calendar year is not in United States dollars, the average currency exchange rate, as reported by the Internal Revenue Service, during that calendar year shall be used to determine whether the applicant’s, inventor’s, joint inventor’s, or entity’s gross income exceeds the threshold specified in paragraph (a)(3) or (4) of this section.

(d) To establish micro entity status under this paragraph, the applicant must certify that:

(1) The applicant qualifies as a small entity as defined in § 1.27 without relying on a government use license exception under § 1.27(a)(4);

(2)

(i) The applicant’s employer, from which the applicant obtains the majority of the applicant’s income, is an institution of higher education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)); or

(ii) The applicant has assigned, granted, conveyed, or is under an obligation by contract or law, to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the particular application to such an institution of higher education.

(e) Micro entity status is established in an application by filing a micro entity certification in writing complying with the requirements of either paragraph (a) or (d) of this section and signed either in compliance with § 1.33(b), in an international application filed in a Receiving Office other than the United States Receiving Office by a person authorized to represent the applicant under § 1.455, or in an international design application by a person authorized to represent the applicant under § 1.1041 before the International Bureau where the micro entity certification is filed with the International Bureau. Status as a micro entity must be specifically established in each related, continuing and reissue application in which status is appropriate and desired. Status as a micro entity in one application or patent does not affect the status of any other application or patent, regardless of the relationship of the applications or patents. The refiling of an application under § 1.53 as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application (including a continued prosecution application under § 1.53(d)), or the filing of a reissue application, requires a new certification of entitlement to micro entity status for the continuing or reissue application

What is the Maximum Income that Will Qualify Special USPTO Consideration?

As of September 2024 and according to the USPTO, the maximum qualifying gross income for paying the reduced micro entity rate is $241,830. This maximum income limit usually changes in September of each calendar year.

Ask Us Anything…about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact us.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

USPTO Inventor's Oath or Declaration Requirement

Notice Requiring Inventor’s Oath or Declaration

The USPTO can issue a Notice Requiring Inventor’s Oath or Declaration that requires action by the Applicant. Failure of the Applicant to respond will cause the Patent Application to become abandoned.

Basic Requirements for a US Patent Application

An Inventor’s oath or declaration is one of the requirements for filing a US Patent Application. Basic minimum requirements for filing a US Patent Application include:

  • Specification
  • Drawings
  • At least one claim
  • Application Data Sheet
  • Inventor’s Oath or Declaration
  • USPTO fees – NOTE: It is less expensive to pay the required USPTO fees on the day the Application is filed

An Example of Oath/Declaration Problems

The given name of the inventor was William.  However, William generally used the name Will in his business.  Will also used the name Will on his federal income taxes.

With the filing of the Patent Application, in the Inventor’s Declaration, the name William was used.  However, in the Application Data Sheet, the name Will was utilized.

The Scenario that Unfolded

Will’s Patent Application was examined and approved by the Examiner. A Notice of Allowance was issued. Will was very happy he was going to be granted his first US Patent.

Several days after receiving the Notice of Allowance, Will received a USPTO Notice Requiring Inventor’s Oath or Declaration. Will contacted Business Patent Law about his dilemma.

The Solution to the USPTO Notice

  • William can file an amended Application Data Sheet indicating his name is William or
  • Will can file a substitute Inventor’s Declaration changing the name to William

Of course, the USPTO charges a small fee for making either one of these corrections.

The Takeaway

When comes to an inventor’s given name and surname, the USPTO demands precision.

Based on information provided to BPL by our IRS and Social Security affiliates, it appears it does not matter if William or Will is utilized for those agencies as long as the social security number is identical.

Ask Us Anything…about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Election Requirements for Patents

Election Requirement

What is a USPTO Election Requirement?

Before the Patent Examiner examines the Application on its merits, the Examiner can generate an Election Requirement causing the Applicant to select a first group of claims for first examination.

The Examiner generates a USPTO Office Action that includes wording similar to:

“The Application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:

  • Group 1: Claims 1-5 and 15-20, drawn to invention Z1, shown in figures 1-10.
  • Group 2: Claims 6-14, drawn to invention Z2 shown in figures 11-17.
  • Group 3: Claims 21-27, drawn to invention Z3 shown in figures 18-27.”

“Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to select a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.”

“There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as for above because at least the following reason(s)…”

Election Requirement – Statutory Law

35 United States Code 121 reads, “If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.” [Emphasis by BPL].

Observations Regarding Divisional Applications

  • In view of the Election Requirement, the Applicant elects a first group of claims for first examination
  • Although an Applicant can argue against the Examiner’s Restriction Requirement, it is generally not cost-efficient for an Applicant to make such an argument
  • After the election of the first group of claims, in due course, the Examiner will issue an Office Action regarding the patentability of the elected claims
  • When the original Application has allowable claims, to receive the benefit of the original filing date, any Divisional Application to be filed, must be filed before the Patent for the original Application is granted
  • A Divisional Application can be filed at any time prior to the Patent grant flowing from the original Application

If your company or you need assistance with US national, foreign or international Patent Applications, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Ask Us Anything…About Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville Kentucky standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

USPTO National Stage Application - US Patent Lawyer

US National Stage – Revisited

US National Stage

In the November 6, 2017 post, it was written, “By using this procedure, it is possible for your company to receive the grant of the US Patent before parallel Application filed in other jurisdictions are examined.” Since that date, the USPTO has somewhat altered the time line associated with US National Stage Applications.

Regarding the US National Stage, in the November 6, 2017 post, Business Patent Law, PLLC wrote:

  • Regardless of the nationality of the Patent Applicant, file a Patent Application in the USPTO
  • It best for your company to originally file a Provisional, Nonprovisional or PCT Application in the USPTO — however, if the Provisional, Nonprovisional or PCT Application was first filed in another jurisdiction, a US Nonprovisional Application can be filed in the USPTO until the US statutory deadline has passed
  • If a PCT Application is not the first Application filed, a PCT Application claiming priority to a Provisional or Nonprovisional Application is filed in a PCT Receiving Office (preferably, the USPTO Receiving Office)
  • File a US Nonprovisional Patent Application shortly after the PCT Application was filed, rather than waiting until near the deadline allowed by the PCT
  • By using this procedure, it is possible for your company to receive the grant of the US Patent before parallel Applications filed in other jurisdictions are examined
  • As previously indicated, the grant of a US Patent can expedite the grant of parallel Patents in many foreign jurisdictions

Current Timing for a US National Stage

After the National Stage Application is filed in the USPTO, the length of time before receiving the USPTO “Notice of Acceptance of Application Under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495” is variable. Because of this uncertainty, it is unlikely that the National Stage Application will be granted before parallel applications must be filed in foreign jurisdictions.

If the National Stage Applicant has not received the USPTO “Notice of Acceptance of Application Under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFT 1.495” after the passage of a reasonable amount of time, contact the USPTO Help Desk to assist with the determination that the US National Stage Application has been properly filed in the USPTO.

Business Patent Law, PLLC’s Observation

Although US law allows the National Stage Applicant to file amended claims with the initial filing of the US National Stage Application, Business Patent Law, PLLC has concluded that it is better to first receive the “Notice of Acceptance of Application Under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFT 1.495,” and thereafter file the set of amended claims before the first USPTO Office Action.

If you or your company needs assistance with US national, foreign or international Patent Applications, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Ask Us Anything…about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Pumpkin Related Patents - Halloween 2024 - Blog

Patents for Pumpkin Inventions

Inventors Receive Patents for Inventions Involving Pumpkins

In 2024, US Halloween related purchases are anticipated to exceed 11 billion dollars. Some merchants expect to capture a portion of those sales. Below are four examples of pumpkin-related patents.

Examples of Patents for Inventions Involving Pumpkins:

  • On September 15, 1927, John Schmidt of Hoopeston, IL filed for a patent for a Pumpkin Steamer (see PDF). The patent was granted on August 15, 1933.
  • On March 28, 1997, Robert K. McClung of Baltimore, MD filed for a patent for a Pro Pumpkin Carver (see PDF). The patent was granted on July 14, 1998.
  • On August 24, 2000, John J. McAdam of Reading, PA and Emerson M. Reyner, II of Palmyra, PA applied for a patent for a Pumpkin Stand (see PDF). The patent was granted, subject to a terminal disclaimer, on July 23, 2002.
  • On October 3, 1996, Jeffrey A. Chapman of Scottsdale, AZ applied for a patent for a Carvable Artificial Pumpkin (See PDF). The patent was granted on September 22, 1998.

Ask Us Anything… about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

 

The Patent Exhaustion Doctrine - Monsanto Case on GMO Soybeans

The Patent Exhaustion Doctrine

When does the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine Apply?

In the US Supreme Court case of Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 569 U.S. 278 (2013), the Court set forth some thresholds for the application of the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine.

The Monsanto Facts

Monsanto invented a genetic modification that enables soybean plants to survive exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in many herbicides (including Monsanto’s own Roundup). Monsanto markets soybean seed containing this altered genetic material as Roundup Ready seed. Farmers planting that seed can use a glyphosate-based herbicide to kill weeds without damaging their crops. Two patents issued to Monsanto cover various aspects of its Roundup Ready technology, including a seed incorporating the genetic alteration.

Monsanto sells, and allows other companies to sell, Roundup Ready soybean seeds to growers who assent to a special licensing agreement. That agreement permits a grower to plant the purchased seeds in one (and only one) season. He can then consume the resulting crop or sell it as a commodity, usually to a grain elevator or agricultural processor. Under the agreement, the farmer may not save any of the harvested soybeans for replanting, nor may he supply them to anyone else for that purpose.

The Bowman Facts

Bowman, an Indiana farmer, devised an approach for his second crop of each season. Because he thought such late-season planting “risky,” he did not want to pay the premium price that Monsanto charges for Roundup Ready seed. He therefore went to a grain elevator; purchased “commodity soybeans” intended for human or animal consumption; and planted them in his fields. Those soybeans came from prior harvests of other local farmers. And because most of those farmers also used Roundup Ready seed, Bowman could anticipate that many of the purchased soybeans would contain Monsanto’s patented technology.

When he applied a glyphosate-based herbicide to his fields, he confirmed that this was so; a significant proportion of the new plants survived the treatment, and produced in their turn a new crop of soybeans with the Roundup Ready trait. Bowman saved seed from that crop to use in his late-season planting the next year—and then the next, and the next, until he had harvested eight crops in that way. Each year, that is, he planted saved seed from the year before (sometimes adding more soybeans bought from the grain elevator), sprayed his fields with glyphosate to kill weeds (and any non-resistant plants), and produced a new crop of glyphosate-resistant—i.e., Roundup Ready—soybeans.

In his defense, Bowman argued the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine.

The Bowman Court’s Holding on the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine

On Page 289 of Bowman, Justice Kegan wrote, “Our holding today is limited—addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self-replicating product. We recognize that such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex, and diverse. In another case, the article’s self-replication might occur outside the purchaser’s control. Or it might be a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose…We need not address here whether or how the doctrine of patent exhaustion would apply in such circumstances. In the case at hand, Bowman planted Monsanto’s patented soybeans solely to make and market replicas of them, thus depriving the company of the reward patent law provides for the sale of each article. Patent exhaustion provides no haven for that conduct. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.”

If your company needs assistance with its Patent Applications, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Ask Us Anything…about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

European Unitary Patent

What Is the European Unitary Patent?

The European Unity Patent, which came into effect on June 1, 2023, is a way to have a single patent cover multiple countries. As of September 1, 2024, it is expected that eighteen European countries will participate in the Unitary Patent System. In the future it is anticipated twenty-five European countries will participate.

Where Do I File?

A request for a Unitary Patent commences in the European Patent Office.

What are the European Patent Office’s Costs of Filing a European Unitary Patent?

It is estimated that the current cost of filing for a Unitary Patent is approximately 2000 Euros plus VAT, if any.  (This less than the traditional manner of validating a European Patent in selected jurisdictions.)

Which European Countries Currently Participate in the Unitary Patent System?

  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Bulgaria
  • Denmark
  • Estonia
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Italy
  • Latvia
  • Lithuania
  • Luxembourg
  • Malta
  • Netherlands
  • Portugal
  • Romania
  • Slovenia
  • Sweden

Which European Countries will Not Participate in the Unitary Patent System?

Switzerland and the United Kingdom are not members of the European Union and they participate only with the traditional validations of European Patents.

If your company needs assistance with its European Patent Applications or Patents, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Ask Us Anything…About Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and you have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies. If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Codes used by the US Patent office

Letter Codes for US Patents

Letter Codes for US Patents & Published Patent Applications

Commencing on January 1, 2002, letter Codes were added to United States Patents.

In 2002, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) began publishing Patent Applications that included letter Codes.

Some of the Letter Codes Used by the USPTO

Letter Code                    Document Type

A                                      Utility Patent Grant issued prior to January 2, 2001

A1                                    Utility Patent Application published on or after January 2, 2001

A2                                   Second or subsequent publication of a Utility Patent Application

A9                                   Correction published Utility Patent Application

Bn                                   Reexamination Certificate issued prior to January 2, 2001

B1                                   Utility Patent Grant without pre-grant publication issued on or after January 2, 2001

B2                                   Utility Patent Grant with pre-grant publication issued on or after January 2, 2001

Cn                                   Reexamination Certificate issued on or after January 2, 2001

E                                      Reissue Patent

S                                      Design Patent

If your company needs assistance with its intellectual properties, contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Ask Us Anything… about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please contact us.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.