<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/29/2024 3:08 PM, Patent Lawyer via
Patentpractice wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BYAPR12MB4743EAC45FC55F716DBABC30A71B2@BYAPR12MB4743.namprd12.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator"
content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">But
I still think it has to be reported to the client.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes but what is the "it" that must be reported?</p>
<p>The arrival of the Notice from the CIO? The problem with getting
all riled up about the arrival of the Notice from the CIO is that
it is very likely meaningless. It probably got sent to you not
because some third party saw your client's invention title, but
because you yourself recorded an assignment during the data leak
interval of 7 weeks.</p>
<p>Let's suppose you have 20 clients. You will have recorded an
assignment during this data leak interval for maybe one of those
clients. That is the client for which the Notice will arrive from
the CIO.</p>
<p>But meanwhile, the other 19 clients may have had their invention
titles viewed because some third party keyed in your client's
application number at Assignment Center. Maybe they did it by
accident, maybe they were plugging in random application numbers
on purpose just to see what would get displayed. And then they
had the self-control not to click "submit", so it never got
logged. But those clients would not have received the Notice from
the CIO because the revelations were not followed by somebody
clicking "submit".</p>
<p>Seems to me that all patent clients whose patent applications had
not yet been published during the data leak interval need to be
told about it.</p>
<p>Now what exactly should be communicated to those clients
(regardless of whether or not any Notice arrived from the CIO)?
Is it enough simply to hand over to the client a copy of the
Notice from the CIO? Surely that is not enough! The Notice from
the CIO fails to disclose that the USPTO did not log the cases
where a third party saw your invention title and then did not
click "submit". The Notice dissembles and mischaracterizes the
consequences of the leak. It just barely avoids outright
falsehoods about several aspects of the leak.<br>
</p>
<p>What should really get communicated to clients is probably a more
accurate report about the situation. Not merely the Notice. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>