Another example of lawyers being a different breed than patent attorneys: members of Board of Trustees of California State Bar admit they screwed up by not investigating over 200 complaints against a lawyer over a period of 40 years. The lawyer is now disbarred and facing federal charges for misappropriation of $18 million of client funds.
Recent Posts
- Are Toxic Bullet Cartridges Next For Hizbullah?
- Where Are All Those “Palestinian” Inventions?
- From the Mouths of Babes, vol. 2 (or, Steph Curry Couldn’t Have Been Clearer)
- Israel Patent Office Changes Policy On Suspension of Examination…But Still Acts Ultra Vires
- Wait And See: Don't Pay For, Let Alone Charge The Client For, An Unnecessary Extension Fee
- If you're going to do a job, you may as well do it half-assed (USPTO's new IDS form)
- Columbia Law Review Board of Directors Shows Its True Colors
- No More AI Prior Art Searches at the ILPTO (at Least for Now)
- Additonal Asininity from the Cretins At Columbia Law Review (and a Bit of Backbone from Board of Directors)
- Israel PTO Announces Expedited Examination of Patent Applications Claiming Priority from Provisional Applications
Links within this blog
Humorless disclaimer: Nothing on this blog is meant to constitute legal advice. This blog doesn’t create an attorney-client relationship. This blog is not soliciting business. The accuracy of statements made in this blog is not guaranteed. The views expressed herein are those of the authors only.
« Raphael Mechoulam z"l | Main | Why Does The Israel PTO Charge A Fee To Grant DAS Access? »
March 17, 2023
Comments
Search
Other Blogs I Read
Categories
- abandonment (13)
- abstracts (1)
- ADS (2)
- AIA (2)
- Alice (2)
- amendments (25)
- appeals (1)
- assignment (6)
- best mode (1)
- BPAI decisions (4)
- claims (21)
- commercialization (4)
- Commissioner's Circulars (62)
- compulsory licensing (5)
- copyright (9)
- crystalline forms (1)
- Current Affairs (36)
- deferred examination (2)
- designs (10)
- Divisional applications (13)
- double-patenting (10)
- electronic filing (57)
- eligibility (3)
- examination (16)
- exhaustion (3)
- extensions (16)
- false marking (2)
- humor (63)
- ILPTO decisions (43)
- indefiniteness (2)
- Inequitable Conduct (4)
- infringement (11)
- injunctions (3)
- inventorship (13)
- IPR (1)
- Laches (2)
- Legislation (57)
- licensing (9)
- methods of treatment (2)
- obviousness (6)
- on-sale bar (1)
- Oppositions (21)
- PAIR (4)
- paragraph IV (7)
- Patent Office Fees (28)
- patent term extension (14)
- Patents Database (16)
- Patents Journal (6)
- PCT (38)
- pharmaceutical (26)
- PPH (16)
- priority claim (22)
- PTAB (3)
- PTO administration (76)
- reexamination (2)
- reissue (3)
- Renewal fees (18)
- revocation (4)
- sanctions (4)
- Sports (1)
- suspension of examination (5)
- tech transfer (5)
- Trademarks (26)
- translation (2)
- Web/Tech (3)
- §17(c) (19)
- §18 (2)
Recent Comments
- James Crowstein on Additonal Asininity from the Cretins At Columbia Law Review (and a Bit of Backbone from Board of Directors)
- Daniel Feigelson on Israel PTO Announces Expedited Examination of Patent Applications Claiming Priority from Provisional Applications
- Daniel Feigelson on Israel PTO Announces Expedited Examination of Patent Applications Claiming Priority from Provisional Applications
- Erez Gur on Israel PTO Announces Expedited Examination of Patent Applications Claiming Priority from Provisional Applications
- Paul on Israel PTO Announces Expedited Examination of Patent Applications Claiming Priority from Provisional Applications
- Dan Feigelson on The Saga of Suspensions (or, You Can’t Make This Up, Installment No. 12? 15? I’ve Lost Track)
- Erez Gur on The Saga of Suspensions (or, You Can’t Make This Up, Installment No. 12? 15? I’ve Lost Track)
- Dan Feigelson on Update from Rehovot
- Jonathan Kaltner on Update from Rehovot
- Allen on New Israel PTO Patent Electronic Filing System - Introductory Meeting