[Patentpractice] Interesting notice from USPTO re data breach

[Patent Lawyer]

Part I:



Related to Neil's points, is there any legal basis, even in the U.S., for his statement:



[cid:image001.png at 01DA9A27.32BDEA00]



And do we have any basis or reason to rely on a note from the CIO of the Patent Office.

Should we at least get a notice from the Director?   Or would that carry as little weight?



Part II:



I have received at least 6 of these notices.

What should I tell my clients?

(Because I feel like writing another letter in my abundant free time!)







On 4/29/24, 10:49 AM, "Patentpractice on behalf of Neil R. Ormos via Patentpractice" <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com on behalf of patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:



    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?"



    --

    Patentpractice mailing list

    Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com

    http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240429/f459a31e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 25064 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240429/f459a31e/attachment.png>