<img width="1" height="1" src='https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/op/JARGNPRZIi7R-XTJA3zbyR36k3EzmuI_-mDmSNsEnwVQ0v7ezHn96_zw-GXFIRoDNUYJbHLVJEmPl44i6_cxZzAQ30FhHkSD935RLtGgBgULzZp3iWuvQ1g2Yh0M1cZvhaZ5kNoH883jEmjryGo6QCmbQfGc_31adLso1vejbCgd_TKPsEWS59EYAC8KkdFrlIpMiGxk4NluV43O7uXTSToJfqYzxpMaLk_e' /><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>I agree that the potential damage should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In my case that prompted this thread, the title of the application says nothing about the invention itself. So I'm not concerned if anyone saw the title by typing in my application number, inadvertently or deliberately. And as a general rule, I try to use titles that disclose as little as possible about the invention. That's what the spec is for. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Dan<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 9:50\u202fPM Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<div>On 4/29/2024 12:14 PM, Carl Oppedahl
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 4/29/2024 9:20 AM, Patent Lawyer
via Patentpractice wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><b>Part II:<u></u><u></u></b>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p>I have received at least 6 of these
notices. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p>What should I tell my clients? <u></u><u></u></p>
<p>(Because I feel like writing another
letter in my abundant free time!)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Here is what I wrote to one of our clients a few minutes ago
...</p>
<p>Subject line includes "USPTO may have revealed your application
title to a third party"</p>
<p>Body of email includes:</p>
<p>Now the USPTO reveals that it may have revealed the title of
your patent application to some member of the public. See the
attached Notice. <br>
<br>
Our title is "redacted". Our application is scheduled to be
published on redacted, 2025. I'd guess your reaction to this
would be that the title, taken alone, does not reveal the
entirety of the invention. Of course the revelation of the
title might nonetheless be of interest to third parties who
would thereby learn that the client is innovating in this
technical area. <br>
<br>
As you may see, the USPTO commits to "confirming that the
disclosure was erroneous and inadvertent". <br>
<br>
I am not able to think of any next step for the client to do
about this, other than waiting for the publication to happen
around sixteen months from now. <br>
<br>
Carl </p>
</blockquote>
<p>It seems to me that the reaction to this data breach ought to be
very much a matter of case-by-case consideration.</p>
<p>Imagine one extreme, where the case claims priority from
something that has already been published. Or, similarly, the
case is a US national phase of a PCT that has already been
published. In such cases the revelation of the title would likely
be a no harm no foul. The revelation of the application number
might, nonetheless, be of concern to the extent that it might
reveal filing activity by the client that would otherwise not have
been known to adversaries or competitors.</p>
<p>Yet another element of the case-by-case analysis would be tied to
the title itself. One extreme is the "tetrafluoroethylene
polymers" case where the title literally reveals the invention.
Another extreme is the innocuous title that reveals very little.
"Method and apparatus for data transmission." "Improved cat box."</p>
<p>In the case quoted above, the client is player number 3 or so in
a fairly small world where player number 1 has infinite amounts of
money to spend on making trouble for players 2 and 3. Even the
tiniest clue given to player number 1 about our client's filing
activities would be unfortunate. But my situation is that I think
the CIO's notice to me is a "boy who cried wolf" situation. I
think it's highly likely that the CIO sent the notice to me not
because any actual data logging by the USPTO revealed that some
third party saw my client's invention title. I think it's highly
likely that the CIO sent the notice to me for no better reason
than that I recorded an assignment during the breach period. <br>
</p>
<p>Yet another factor for the case-by-case analysis is the position
in the time line for the US pub. In the case I quoted above, the
filing that I did claimed no priority and no domestic benefit. So
the US pub will be sixteen months from now. It's sad to think of
unnecessarily revealing something sixteen months early. On the
other hand if the case you are looking at is going to be published
in a week, maybe that is not so sad.</p>
</div></blockquote></div></div>