<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<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 Definitions */
@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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>Part I:<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Related to Neil's points, is there any legal basis, even in the U.S., for his statement:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><img width="634" height="38" style="width:6.6041in;height:.3958in" id="Picture_x0020_1" data-outlook-trace="F:0|T:1" src="cid:image001.png@01DA9A27.32BDEA00"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">And do we have any basis or reason to rely on a note from the CIO of the Patent Office.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Should we at least get a notice from the Director? Or would that carry as little weight?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>Part II:<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I have received at least 6 of these notices. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">What should I tell my clients? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">(Because I feel like writing another letter in my abundant free time!)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">\ufeffOn 4/29/24, 10:49 AM, "Patentpractice on behalf of Neil R. Ormos via Patentpractice" <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com on behalf of patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Jeffrey Semprebon wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> > Carl Oppedahl wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> I consider it vanishingly unlikely that the CIO<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> successfully communicated this *mea culpa*<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> Notice to all or even most of the US patent<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> applicants whose invention titles got revealed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> to third parties.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> ...<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> The vast majority of US patent applicants who<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> *did* have their invention titles revealed to a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> third party probably did not receive the CIO's<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> *mea culpa* Notice, because I am sure the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> developers of Ass. Center failed to log the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> mistyped application numbers. If an applicant<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> whose invention title got revealed in this way<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> to a third party did receive the CIO's *mea<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> culpa* Notice, it would only be due to a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> coincidence that the applicant had by chance<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> itself made use of Ass. Center during the time<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >> of the data breach.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> > Raising the question of whether the USPTO's<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> > response has been compliant with any relevant<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> > federal or state laws regarding requirements to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> > report data breaches to those potentially<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> > affected.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Perhaps the notice raises these additional questions:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> (1) The notice claims that the PTO first reproduced the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> problem on day D, and fixed it on day D+1.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> "Reproduced" implies that someone else, e.g., a user,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> reported the problem. How many days did it take after<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> the first user report for the PTO to reproduce the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> problem?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> (2) The notice states: "It is extremely unlikely that the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> title could disclose the invention in a way that would<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> constitute patent-defeating prior art in any<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> jurisdiction." The CIO's PTO-web-site biography does<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> not indicate that the CIO is admitted to practice in<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> any jurisdiction. Assuming the CIO is not admitted<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> anywhere, does the statement purporting to advise<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> users regarding the effect of the disclosures on patent<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> rights in jurisdictions outside the United States<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> constitute the unauthorized practice of law?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> (3) The notice states: "To the extent any issue is raised,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> the USPTO will assist applicants by confirming that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> the disclosure was erroneous and inadvertent." Are<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> there any jurisdictions where the usual effect of a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> patentability-destroying disclosure would be avoided<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> by a "confirm[ation] that the disclosure was erroneous<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> and inadvertent?"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> -- <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Patentpractice mailing list<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>