[Patentpractice] Interesting notice from USPTO re data breach

[Neil R. Ormos]

Jeffrey Semprebon wrote:
> Carl Oppedahl wrote:

>> I consider it vanishingly unlikely that the CIO
>> successfully communicated this *mea culpa*
>> Notice to all or even most of the US patent
>> applicants whose invention titles got revealed
>> to third parties.

>> ...

>> The vast majority of US patent applicants who
>> *did* have their invention titles revealed to a
>> third party probably did not receive the CIO's
>> *mea culpa* Notice, because I am sure the
>> developers of Ass. Center failed to log the
>> mistyped application numbers.  If an applicant
>> whose invention title got revealed in this way
>> to a third party did receive the CIO's *mea
>> culpa* Notice, it would only be due to a
>> coincidence that the applicant had by chance
>> itself made use of Ass. Center during the time
>> of the data breach.

> Raising the question of whether the USPTO's
> response has been compliant with any relevant
> federal or state laws regarding requirements to
> report data breaches to those potentially
> affected.

Perhaps the notice raises these additional questions:

  (1) The notice claims that the PTO first reproduced the
      problem on day D, and fixed it on day D+1.
      "Reproduced" implies that someone else, e.g., a user,
      reported the problem.  How many days did it take after
      the first user report for the PTO to reproduce the
      problem?

  (2) The notice states: "It is extremely unlikely that the
      title could disclose the invention in a way that would
      constitute patent-defeating prior art in any
      jurisdiction."  The CIO's PTO-web-site biography does
      not indicate that the CIO is admitted to practice in
      any jurisdiction.  Assuming the CIO is not admitted
      anywhere, does the statement purporting to advise
      users regarding the effect of the disclosures on patent
      rights in jurisdictions outside the United States
      constitute the unauthorized practice of law?

  (3) The notice states: "To the extent any issue is raised,
      the USPTO will assist applicants by confirming that
      the disclosure was erroneous and inadvertent."  Are
      there any jurisdictions where the usual effect of a
      patentability-destroying disclosure would be avoided
      by a "confirm[ation] that the disclosure was erroneous
      and inadvertent?"