[Patentpractice] Freaking Ridiculous: Proposed changes to terminal disclaimer practice to promote innovation and competition

Fri May 10 00:17:51 UTC 2024

At first blush, it seems this action could be challenged under West Virginia v. EPA, 597 US 697 (2022). I’m aware of no clear Congressional authority for this rule under any provision of 35 USC.
Let’s see what the various IP advocacy organizations do about this. Has anyone brought this to the attention of the IP subcommittees of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees?

Howard J. Klein
Registered US Patent Attorney
Admitted in CA and NY
Of Counsel
SHORE IP GROUP, PLLC
780 Long Beach Blvd
Long Beach, NY 11561
Phone: 516-682-2024
Direct: 949-872-5502 (Mobile)

From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Scott Nielson via Patentpractice
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 7:43 PM
To: For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Scott Nielson <scnielson at outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Freaking Ridiculous: Proposed changes to terminal disclaimer practice to promote innovation and competition

In the Fed Reg notice, the PTO says it has authority to promulgate the rule because:
A rule requiring that terminal disclaimers filed to obviate nonstatutory double patenting include language placing conditions upon enforcement was previously upheld as within the USPTO’s rulemaking authority. See In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1982).
The notice also says this:
 Currently, claims in patents tied by a terminal disclaimer filed under 37 CFR 1.321(c) or (d) to obviate nonstatutory double patenting must be separately challenged on validity grounds. See 35 U.S.C. 282(a); see also SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC, 884 F.3d 1160, 1167-68 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[O]ur cases foreclose the inference that filing a terminal disclaimer functions as an admission regarding the patentability of the resulting claims.”); Motionless Keyboard Co. v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A terminal disclaimer simply is not an admission that a later-filed invention is obvious.”); Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Smith, 959 F.2d 936, 941 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (rejecting the argument that the patent applicant admitted to obviousness-type double patenting by filing a terminal disclaimer); Quad Envtl. Techs. Corp. v. Union Sanitary Dist., 946 F.2d 870, 874 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he filing of a terminal disclaimer simply serves the statutory function of removing the rejection of double patenting, and raises neither presumption nor estoppel on the merits of the rejection.”). The current state of the law exposes competitors attempting to enter the market to potentially high costs because they may have to defend against patents to obvious variants of a single invention despite the presence of terminal disclaimers.
(emphasis added). It seems like the intent of the USPTO's rule is to change the current state of the law as determined by the Federal Circuit. This seems like an overreach.
It is impressive how the USPTO abstracted the holding in In re Van Ornum as "language placing conditions upon enforcement" is "within the USPTO's rulemaking authority." In re Van Ornum is the case that upheld the USPTO's authority to promulgate the rule requiring terminal disclaimers include a common ownership provision. In that case, there was a quite a bit of earlier case law discussing the common ownership requirement and the possibility of harassment from multiple parties. One case endorsed the common ownership requirement as a way of overcoming this concern. A more realistic characterization of the holding is "language placing conditions upon enforcement" that have been previously recognized by the courts is "within the USPTO's rulemaking authority."

In the proposed rule, the USPTO is concerned not about harassment from multiple parties, but from multiple patents owned by the same party. I haven't seen any court precedent addressing this. In fact, by the USPTO's admission, the court precedent appears to be against it and the USPTO wants to change it.

Notably, In re Van Ornum justified the USPTO's common ownership rule by quoting an earlier case that said "[w]hen a terminal disclaimer causes two patents to expire together[,] a situation is created which is tantamount for all practical purposes to having all the claims in one patent." This concept justified the common ownership requirement.

If two patents tied together by a terminal disclaimer are functionally equivalent to a single patent, then the claims in the "single" patent must be invalidated on a claim by claim basis in accordance with established law. It should not be permissible to invalidate one claim and automatically wipe out many of the others by rulemaking fiat.

Scott Nielson

801-660-4400

________________________________
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of David Boundy via Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 4:51 PM
To: For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com<mailto:DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Freaking Ridiculous: Proposed changes to terminal disclaimer practice to promote innovation and competition

Bingo.
    -- this is clearly substantive.   Beyond PTO's authority.  Not within good faith judgment call.
    -- the claim of "procedural" is false.  Utterly false.  Beyond any good faith judgment call.
    -- claim to have Paperwork Reduction Act clearance is plainly false.  Again, beyond any good faith judgment call.
    -- claim to "not significant" for Executive Order 12866.  Beyond any good faith judgment call.
    -- the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis assumes that making a decision about a Terminal Disclaimer is a decision that can be made instantaneously, at zero time, at zero cost, and the cost is just filing out the form, paying the fee, and filing.  The RegFlex analysis assumes that this change to Terminal Disclaimers will impose no additional cost of analysis, and that the resultant loss of patent value is zero.  Beyond good faith judgment call.

Kathi Vidal, your staff are lying their asses off, and you signed off on it.

On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 4:34 PM steve--- via Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:

Since the origin of the OTDP Rejection is judicial, is this simply an extrastatutory administrative over-reach?

What authority does the USPTO have to make new substantive rules outside of (a) implementing statutes and (b) ensuring compliance with extrastatutory judicial tinkering with the patent system?

Very truly yours,

Steven M. Hoffberg

Hoffberg & Associates

steve at hoffberglaw.com<mailto:steve at hoffberglaw.com>

https://www.linkedin.com/in/hoffberg/

From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Scott Nielson via Patentpractice
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 3:13 PM
To: For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Scott Nielson <scnielson at outlook.com<mailto:scnielson at outlook.com>>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Freaking Ridiculous: Proposed changes to terminal disclaimer practice to promote innovation and competition

This seems targeted at drug patents and lowering the cost of drugs. It also seems that this will encourage more junk restriction requirements because applicants will be more accepting of junk restriction requirements and, consequently, examiners will be able to successfully issue junk restriction requirements more often (thereby making it easier for examiners to get counts).

Scott Nielson

801-660-4400

________________________________

From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of Randall Svihla via Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 12:31 PM
To: For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Randall Svihla <rsvihla at nsiplaw.com<mailto:rsvihla at nsiplaw.com>>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Freaking Ridiculous: Proposed changes to terminal disclaimer practice to promote innovation and competition

I haven't fully analyzed the effect of this, but my initial reaction is that it SUUUUUUUUUUUCKS.

If they do this, they need to shut down the office for a month and retrain the Examiners on how to make a proper nonstatutory double patenting rejection.  Most of the rejections they issue now are completely BOGUS.

Best regards,

Randall S. Svihla

NSIP Law

Washington, D.C.

From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Suzannah K. Sundby via Patentpractice
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 2:22 PM
To: patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Suzannah K. Sundby <suzannah at canadylortz.com<mailto:suzannah at canadylortz.com>>
Subject: [Patentpractice] Freaking Ridiculous: Proposed changes to terminal disclaimer practice to promote innovation and competition

This is so freaking ridiculous.

It’s an attempt to limit continuations and prevent/reduce patents… basically what Dudas tried to do with continuation practice…

Suzannah K. Sundby<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ssundby/> | Partner

canady + lortz<http://www.canadylortz.com/> LLP<http://www.canadylortz.com/>

1050 30th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20007

T: 202.486.8020

F: 202.540.8020

suzannah at canadylortz.com<mailto:suzannah at canadylortz.com>

www.canadylortz.com<http://www.canadylortz.com/>

Confidentiality Notice:  This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer.  It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed.  This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure.  If you are not the named addressee, you may not read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.

From: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office <subscriptioncenter at subscriptions.uspto.gov<mailto:subscriptioncenter at subscriptions.uspto.gov>>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 2:17 PM
To: Suzannah K. Sundby <suzannah at canadylortz.com<mailto:suzannah at canadylortz.com>>
Subject: Proposed changes to terminal disclaimer practice to promote innovation and competition

The USPTO has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to add a new requirement for terminal disclaimers.

Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page<https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vY29udGVudC5nb3ZkZWxpdmVyeS5jb20vYWNjb3VudHMvVVNQVE8vYnVsbGV0aW5zLzM5YjgzMjYiLCJidWxsZXRpbl9pZCI6IjIwMjQwNTA5Ljk0NTY1OTIxIn0.EyMw7a2q5wF5cdpvZJUCX1wdqcG-VKQvfp7Ug9tWBsI/s/1514988646/br/242170303451-l>.

[Image removed by sender.]

News Brief

[Image removed by sender. US Patent and Trademark Office]

Proposed changes to terminal disclaimer practice to promote innovation and competition

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to add a new requirement for terminal disclaimers filed to obviate (overcome) nonstatutory double patenting.

Under U.S. law, an inventor, patent owner or joint researchers may obtain more than one patent with claims that vary in only minor (patentably indistinct) ways from each other. The USPTO will reject such claims under “obviousness-type double patenting” (also known as “nonstatutory double patenting”) and will allow claims to issue only as long as the practice of obtaining similar claims across patents isn’t used to extend the patent exclusivity term or allow multiple parties to harass an alleged infringer. Both conditions aim to strike a balance between incentivizing innovation in the first instance while providing more certainty to competitors and the public.

The proposed rule responds to public feedback and proposes to add a third condition that would further promote innovation and competition by reducing the cost of separately challenging each patent in a group of multiple patents directed to indistinct variations of a single invention. Under the proposed rule, to overcome double patenting the patentee would need to agree that the patent with the terminal disclaimer will be enforceable only if the patent is not tied and has never been tied through one or more terminal disclaimers to a patent in which any claim has been finally held unpatentable or invalid over prior art. In addition to reducing costs, the proposed rule is expected to streamline and expedite patent disputes, narrow validity issues, and provide greater certainty to competitors and to the public. The proposed rule is prospective in nature and would apply to terminal disclaimers filed on or after the effective date of any final rule.

The USPTO recognizes that, as with any proposed rule change, patentees will need to consider and potentially adapt their practices. While the USPTO moves forward with rulemaking, the Office is considering ways the Office can support stakeholders. Comments on the proposed rule, as well as comments on USPTO practice as related to the proposed rule, are welcome.

“Our mission at the USPTO is to drive U.S. innovation and global competitiveness for the benefit of all Americans,” said Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of the USPTO Kathi Vidal. “This proposed rule is part of a holistic, thoughtful and balanced approach to bolstering our strong intellectual property system. We must remain steadfast in incentivizing and protecting the investments in innovation that drive U.S. leadership, while recognizing that surgical changes can create efficiencies that reduce costs and promote competition.”

The full text of the notice is available at the Federal Register<https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDEsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmZlZGVyYWxyZWdpc3Rlci5nb3YvcHVibGljLWluc3BlY3Rpb24vMjAyNC0xMDE2Ni90ZXJtaW5hbC1kaXNjbGFpbWVyLXByYWN0aWNlLXRvLW9idmlhdGUtbm9uc3RhdHV0b3J5LWRvdWJsZS1wYXRlbnRpbmc_dXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPXN1YnNjcmlwdGlvbmNlbnRlciZ1dG1fY29udGVudD0mdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fbmFtZT0mdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1nb3ZkZWxpdmVyeSZ1dG1fdGVybT0iLCJidWxsZXRpbl9pZCI6IjIwMjQwNTA5Ljk0NTY1OTIxIn0.Ri4CT8s3uXvsmWzgIT6enHV9Hrhc7nCW0h1JVCsMOuc/s/1514988646/br/242170303451-l> and on the USPTO’s Patent Related Notices webpage<https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDIsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnVzcHRvLmdvdi9wYXRlbnRzL2xhd3MvcGF0ZW50LXJlbGF0ZWQtbm90aWNlcy9wYXRlbnQtcmVsYXRlZC1ub3RpY2VzLTIwMjQ_dXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPXN1YnNjcmlwdGlvbmNlbnRlciZ1dG1fY29udGVudD0mdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fbmFtZT0mdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1nb3ZkZWxpdmVyeSZ1dG1fdGVybT0iLCJidWxsZXRpbl9pZCI6IjIwMjQwNTA5Ljk0NTY1OTIxIn0.BHMm-eKtJM5AEEgPIU_ronUBHxMEOnDJBZwwTU31SWE/s/1514988646/br/242170303451-l>. You must submit comments on the NPRM by July 9, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal<https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDMsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cucmVndWxhdGlvbnMuZ292Lz91dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249c3Vic2NyaXB0aW9uY2VudGVyJnV0bV9jb250ZW50PSZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9uYW1lPSZ1dG1fc291cmNlPWdvdmRlbGl2ZXJ5JnV0bV90ZXJtPSIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyNDA1MDkuOTQ1NjU5MjEifQ.x9j7p6cIgsa045JjXz-sdsiE29sQzlCXLIFpUp-XoHI/s/1514988646/br/242170303451-l>, to ensure consideration.

[Image removed by sender.]

[Image removed by sender. facebook]<https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDQsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZmFjZWJvb2suY29tL3VzcHRvLmdvdj91dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249c3Vic2NyaXB0aW9uY2VudGVyJnV0bV9jb250ZW50PSZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9uYW1lPSZ1dG1fc291cmNlPWdvdmRlbGl2ZXJ5JnV0bV90ZXJtPSIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyNDA1MDkuOTQ1NjU5MjEifQ.fH0fSL2ws41jjEZJDkcXyFBqY7MgF_wKvhR9Kg1lqyY/s/1514988646/br/242170303451-l>[Image removed by sender. twitter]<https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDUsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHA6Ly90d2l0dGVyLmNvbS91c3B0bz91dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249c3Vic2NyaXB0aW9uY2VudGVyJnV0bV9jb250ZW50PSZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9uYW1lPSZ1dG1fc291cmNlPWdvdmRlbGl2ZXJ5JnV0bV90ZXJtPSIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyNDA1MDkuOTQ1NjU5MjEifQ.ERGJlAzu-mDkmaOLtrxv3trpYrhONs040tPKshlLDb4/s/1514988646/br/242170303451-l>[Image removed by sender. youtube]<https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDYsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHA6Ly95b3V0dWJlLmNvbS91c3B0b3ZpZGVvP3V0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zdWJzY3JpcHRpb25jZW50ZXImdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9JnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX25hbWU9JnV0bV9zb3VyY2U9Z292ZGVsaXZlcnkmdXRtX3Rlcm09IiwiYnVsbGV0aW5faWQiOiIyMDI0MDUwOS45NDU2NTkyMSJ9.-gDJBXUYZbKuG-IitNkIPqSp-6BJjJezp2-gojWk5OE/s/1514988646/br/242170303451-l>[Image removed by sender. linkedin]<https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDcsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHA6Ly9saW5rZWRpbi5jb20vY29tcGFueS91c3B0bz91dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249c3Vic2NyaXB0aW9uY2VudGVyJnV0bV9jb250ZW50PSZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9uYW1lPSZ1dG1fc291cmNlPWdvdmRlbGl2ZXJ5JnV0bV90ZXJtPSIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyNDA1MDkuOTQ1NjU5MjEifQ.EEelCFc6-31zAhzs3KmPABfl-XSa77Qmebb1e4EoEEM/s/1514988646/br/242170303451-l>

[Image removed by sender.]

Stay connected with the USPTO by subscribing to regular email updates.

Visit our subscription center at www.uspto.gov/subscribe<https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDgsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNwdG8uZ292L3N1YnNjcmliZT91dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249c3Vic2NyaXB0aW9uY2VudGVyJnV0bV9jb250ZW50PSZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9uYW1lPSZ1dG1fc291cmNlPWdvdmRlbGl2ZXJ5JnV0bV90ZXJtPSIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyNDA1MDkuOTQ1NjU5MjEifQ.2LLW5PzXqTN2R7qdhXdjG7E8XqGpa5-6SYx3u8cFSNc/s/1514988646/br/242170303451-l> to update or change your email preferences.

This email was sent from an unmonitored mailbox. To contact us, please visit our website www.uspto.gov/about/contacts<https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDksInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNwdG8uZ292L2Fib3V0L2NvbnRhY3RzP3V0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zdWJzY3JpcHRpb25jZW50ZXImdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9JnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX25hbWU9JnV0bV9zb3VyY2U9Z292ZGVsaXZlcnkmdXRtX3Rlcm09IiwiYnVsbGV0aW5faWQiOiIyMDI0MDUwOS45NDU2NTkyMSJ9.fq8UjH1xTrq8PBocQEDrT5pDcB7lpe37p1ptWbQZ3g4/s/1514988646/br/242170303451-l>. To ensure that you continue to receive our news and notices, please modify your email filters to allow mail from subscriptioncenter at subscriptions.uspto.gov<mailto:subscriptioncenter at subscriptions.uspto.gov>.

[Image removed by sender.]

________________________________

This email was sent to suzannah at canadylortz.com<mailto:suzannah at canadylortz.com> using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: United States Patent and Trademark Office ·600 Dulany Street · Alexandria , VA 22314

[Image removed by sender. GovDelivery logo]<https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMTAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vc3Vic2NyaWJlcmhlbHAuZ3JhbmljdXMuY29tLz91dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249c3Vic2NyaXB0aW9uY2VudGVyJnV0bV9jb250ZW50PSZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9uYW1lPSZ1dG1fc291cmNlPWdvdmRlbGl2ZXJ5JnV0bV90ZXJtPSIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyNDA1MDkuOTQ1NjU5MjEifQ.w5UH5_d9De1PY98UTXnxxrAgGQEQfnARCnnHUAVmsVU/s/1514988646/br/242170303451-l>

[Image removed by sender.]

[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virus-free.www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
--
Patentpractice mailing list
Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com

--

[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wRMgBgcdZCqTw68Gg6ihENvW6_y8dGBqYvnJwiaIyu6LO5a7IJ-cljKsueIE5uxXbT6s9MN5hE2lGU]      <https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>

David Boundy | Partner | Potomac Law Group, PLLC

P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA  02459

Tel (646) 472-9737 | Fax: (202) 318-7707

dboundy at potomaclaw.com<mailto:dboundy at potomaclaw.com> | www.potomaclaw.com<http://www.potomaclaw.com/>

Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470<http://ssrn.com/author=2936470>

Click here to add me to your contacts.<https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240510/df16673a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240510/df16673a/attachment.jpg>