- Status
Some questions:
- What rights are granted to someone using the "Patent Pending" mark on a device they are actively selling?
- What is the responsibility of the person applying the "Patent Pending" mark on a device they are actively selling to prove that an application has been submitted?
- What if any rights do others have to verify that a patent application has been submitted for a device marked "Patent Pending" and currently available for purchase?
- If the patent application has not yet been published by the USPTO can someone require that a copy be provided by the person applying the "Patent Pending" mark? (for a device that is currently being sold, not one still "under wraps")
- What if any rights do others have if someone selling a device marked "Patent Pending" refuses to or cannot provide proof of a pending patent application (or even admits that they have not yet applied for a patent)?
- What rights are granted to someone using the "Patent Pending" mark on a device they are actively selling?
- What is the responsibility of the person applying the "Patent Pending" mark on a device they are actively selling to prove that an application has been submitted?
- What if any rights do others have to verify that a patent application has been submitted for a device marked "Patent Pending" and currently available for purchase?
- If the patent application has not yet been published by the USPTO can someone require that a copy be provided by the person applying the "Patent Pending" mark? (for a device that is currently being sold, not one still "under wraps")
- What if any rights do others have if someone selling a device marked "Patent Pending" refuses to or cannot provide proof of a pending patent application (or even admits that they have not yet applied for a patent)?
From the patent office FAQ: (this should help answer most if not all of Vapians questions)
1. What do the terms “patent pending” and “patent applied for” mean?
A. They are used by a manufacturer or seller of an article to inform the public that an application for patent on that article is on file in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The law imposes a fine on those who use these terms falsely to deceive the public.
2. Is there any danger that the USPTO will give others information contained in my application while it is pending?
A. Most patent applications filed on or after November 29, 2000, will be published 18 months after the filing date of the application, or any earlier filing date relied upon under Title 35, United States Code. Otherwise, all patent applications are maintained in the strictest confidence until the patent is issued or the application is published. After the application has been published, however, a member of the public may request a copy of the application file. After the patent is issued, the Office file containing the application and all correspondence leading up to issuance of the patent is made available in the Files Information Unit for inspection by anyone, and copies of these files may be purchased from the Office.
From another area of the USPTO site:
Definition of term
The term “patent pending” can be applied toward various kinds of products awaiting the awarding of this kind of intellectual property protection, as is provided for in the legal and governmental system of the United States as one of the functions undertaken by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). As such, the “patent pending” mark can be placed on a particular item claimed to constitute such an act of original invention, discovery or creation in order to provide notice to other potential users or claimants of patent rights that rights have been asserted before the USPTO, and might eventually be accorded.
Conditions affecting “patent pending” term
The USPTO administers a relatively demanding and quite lengthy process as must be undergone by an applicant before intellectual property protections can be accorded in this form, due to the restrictiveness of the rights accordingly granted to an inventor. On a case by case, “patent pending” cases have been recognized as potentially taking up to 3 years before the process can be fully concluded.
USPTO “investigation”
The period during which “patent pending” can be said to be in effect for the purported inventor of such a patentable, unique and useful product, process or idea will be largely taken up by the so-called process of “investigation,” as consists of the procedures administered by the USCIS toward the end of determining whether or not the submitted creation can be meaningfully, verifiably and reasonably be found to fulfill the various requirements for eligibility maintained by the agency.
Illegal “patent pending” claims
If a person places a patent pending mark on a product or invention, as well as any other potentially relevant item subject to intellectual property protections, he or she will be subject to legal actions, including in the form of prosecution, if this claim is found to have been asserted untruthfully and illegally. The determination that a patent pending claim was illegal is made in regard not to the eventual success or failure of supposedly patentable inventions gaining this kind of intellectual property protection right, but whether the claimant has taken the necessary step of at least applying for such rights. As such, a patent pending mark placed on an invention which has not in fact been submitted to the USPTO will thus raise the possibility of the wrongfully acting claimant being subject to various kinds of criminal and civil penalties. Wrongful patent pending claims are considered federal offenses. Heavy fines might be leveled, as a form of punishment, against individuals who use patent pending marks in untruthful and accordingly illegal forms. Terms of imprisonment might also be sought after for a person who uses a patent pending mark without the proper authorization.
Understanding scope of patent pending mark
The right to use a patent pending mark, though it indicates that a patent has been applied for and might be received, at least in the sense of not yet having been rejected, should not be mistaken as any form of assurance that this provision will be granted.
1. What do the terms “patent pending” and “patent applied for” mean?
A. They are used by a manufacturer or seller of an article to inform the public that an application for patent on that article is on file in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The law imposes a fine on those who use these terms falsely to deceive the public.
2. Is there any danger that the USPTO will give others information contained in my application while it is pending?
A. Most patent applications filed on or after November 29, 2000, will be published 18 months after the filing date of the application, or any earlier filing date relied upon under Title 35, United States Code. Otherwise, all patent applications are maintained in the strictest confidence until the patent is issued or the application is published. After the application has been published, however, a member of the public may request a copy of the application file. After the patent is issued, the Office file containing the application and all correspondence leading up to issuance of the patent is made available in the Files Information Unit for inspection by anyone, and copies of these files may be purchased from the Office.
From another area of the USPTO site:
Definition of term
The term “patent pending” can be applied toward various kinds of products awaiting the awarding of this kind of intellectual property protection, as is provided for in the legal and governmental system of the United States as one of the functions undertaken by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). As such, the “patent pending” mark can be placed on a particular item claimed to constitute such an act of original invention, discovery or creation in order to provide notice to other potential users or claimants of patent rights that rights have been asserted before the USPTO, and might eventually be accorded.
Conditions affecting “patent pending” term
The USPTO administers a relatively demanding and quite lengthy process as must be undergone by an applicant before intellectual property protections can be accorded in this form, due to the restrictiveness of the rights accordingly granted to an inventor. On a case by case, “patent pending” cases have been recognized as potentially taking up to 3 years before the process can be fully concluded.
USPTO “investigation”
The period during which “patent pending” can be said to be in effect for the purported inventor of such a patentable, unique and useful product, process or idea will be largely taken up by the so-called process of “investigation,” as consists of the procedures administered by the USCIS toward the end of determining whether or not the submitted creation can be meaningfully, verifiably and reasonably be found to fulfill the various requirements for eligibility maintained by the agency.
Illegal “patent pending” claims
If a person places a patent pending mark on a product or invention, as well as any other potentially relevant item subject to intellectual property protections, he or she will be subject to legal actions, including in the form of prosecution, if this claim is found to have been asserted untruthfully and illegally. The determination that a patent pending claim was illegal is made in regard not to the eventual success or failure of supposedly patentable inventions gaining this kind of intellectual property protection right, but whether the claimant has taken the necessary step of at least applying for such rights. As such, a patent pending mark placed on an invention which has not in fact been submitted to the USPTO will thus raise the possibility of the wrongfully acting claimant being subject to various kinds of criminal and civil penalties. Wrongful patent pending claims are considered federal offenses. Heavy fines might be leveled, as a form of punishment, against individuals who use patent pending marks in untruthful and accordingly illegal forms. Terms of imprisonment might also be sought after for a person who uses a patent pending mark without the proper authorization.
Understanding scope of patent pending mark
The right to use a patent pending mark, though it indicates that a patent has been applied for and might be received, at least in the sense of not yet having been rejected, should not be mistaken as any form of assurance that this provision will be granted.
Last edited:
All good information, thanks! But let me drill it down a bit to a more specific situation.
It is understood that:
- A person has the right to mark a device as "Patent Pending" as soon as an application for a patent on that device is accepted by the USPTO; and
- The USPTO will only publish a patent application 18 months after accepting it.
This leaves an 18 month window in which the average Joe cannot quickly verify that an application is actually pending.
So someone starts selling an item they have marked "Patent Pending" and tries to throw their weight around and make demands of others, claiming rights under that status.
Other than waiting and constantly checking to see if an application search reveals it based on searchable terms, does anyone have the right to demand proof of their patent application from the person using the Patent Pending mark?
And, does the person using the Patent Pending mark have any legal obligation to provide proof of their application upon request?
I would think that Average Joe has the legal right to request proof and the person making the claim has the obligation to provide proof, based on the fact that any U.S. citizen can take someone to court for using the Patent Pending mark illegally - they do not have to prove damages, only the that the mark was illegally used and that the intent of doing so was to deceive.
Unfortunately I have not yet been able to find a link that spells it out one way or the other... yet. Still looking, but it would be great if someone who's already been down that road has experience to share.
It is understood that:
- A person has the right to mark a device as "Patent Pending" as soon as an application for a patent on that device is accepted by the USPTO; and
- The USPTO will only publish a patent application 18 months after accepting it.
This leaves an 18 month window in which the average Joe cannot quickly verify that an application is actually pending.
So someone starts selling an item they have marked "Patent Pending" and tries to throw their weight around and make demands of others, claiming rights under that status.
Other than waiting and constantly checking to see if an application search reveals it based on searchable terms, does anyone have the right to demand proof of their patent application from the person using the Patent Pending mark?
And, does the person using the Patent Pending mark have any legal obligation to provide proof of their application upon request?
I would think that Average Joe has the legal right to request proof and the person making the claim has the obligation to provide proof, based on the fact that any U.S. citizen can take someone to court for using the Patent Pending mark illegally - they do not have to prove damages, only the that the mark was illegally used and that the intent of doing so was to deceive.
Unfortunately I have not yet been able to find a link that spells it out one way or the other... yet. Still looking, but it would be great if someone who's already been down that road has experience to share.
I also have a question that maybe someone may help with:
Deleted by poster.....
Deleted by poster.....
Last edited:
OK and I am NOT a Lawyer ( many of these questions really need to be answered by a patent lawyer ! ) but as a basic guideline ,
PAtent pending means the application is in process , this allows the owner of the appl. to notify others that it is , there are rules on using PP on a product , this also informs others that the owner has filed and that the product/design MAY in the future be issued a patent , it also serves as a DATE marker for legal action( I believe ?? I know that a letter to any person or business serves as a defining DATE ) this date can be used in litigation as a START date for past due licence fees or potential BACK $$$ , that means if a person/bus. is selling a product that violates a patent pending and has recieved a letter notifying them of this that they can be liable for part due licence fees etc.
Retird IF that happens you need a NEW lawyer because they SUCK at what they do !!! we hire these guys for just that reason !
Vapian , the pending process has legal aspect attached to it , it is very in depth and cannot all be said here but see the above , IF a person/bus. is notified and they are producing a violating product they can be subject to past due $$ and or fines , it is illegal to copy patent pending and patented products in the USA. actually it is a civil court issue not criminal .
PAtent pending means the application is in process , this allows the owner of the appl. to notify others that it is , there are rules on using PP on a product , this also informs others that the owner has filed and that the product/design MAY in the future be issued a patent , it also serves as a DATE marker for legal action( I believe ?? I know that a letter to any person or business serves as a defining DATE ) this date can be used in litigation as a START date for past due licence fees or potential BACK $$$ , that means if a person/bus. is selling a product that violates a patent pending and has recieved a letter notifying them of this that they can be liable for part due licence fees etc.
Retird IF that happens you need a NEW lawyer because they SUCK at what they do !!! we hire these guys for just that reason !
Vapian , the pending process has legal aspect attached to it , it is very in depth and cannot all be said here but see the above , IF a person/bus. is notified and they are producing a violating product they can be subject to past due $$ and or fines , it is illegal to copy patent pending and patented products in the USA. actually it is a civil court issue not criminal .
And for my second question.....hopefully there will be visitors to this thread with legal standing that can answer this and my previous question....
Deleted by poster
Deleted by poster
Last edited:
Perhaps someone can correct me, but my understanding is that the simple heating coil\wick\battery device that is most commonly used now is NOT patented, at least in the US. All of the ecig patents I've seen have ultrasonic atomization in the design.
My understanding is that Ryan has a US Patent and is in litigation now against 3 companies.....filed in California....
Yep, thats the ultrasonic patent I was speaking of that they are trying to litigate over. There's no telling what the outcome may be, but generally the jist of patents is that they are focused on methods and design, not just the generic idea itself. There are a zillion light bulb patents.
An "average Joe" has no need to verify that a patent is actually pending, or has been applied for. Patents are a matter of civil law, and the only person or company that could be damaged by a falsely asserted Patent pending or registration claim would be a company or inventor that has been approached by the illegitimate claimant in an effort to cause same to either cease and desist or to excise an undeserved license fee based on the illegitimate claim. No "average Joe" would find themselves in this situation.
Only a fool would assert a patent pending or registration claim without having actually filed at the USPTO for their patent... provisional or otherwise. This would most certainly be a fraudulent act with dire financial circumstances. That being said, a person that believes a patent has been applied for containing false information has the right to file a formal protest with the details of their allegation.
Yes and no... If the USPTO requests proof of a patent application for some reason (and there are few circumstances when this could actually occur), then there is the legal requirement to provide the proof of application upon request. If "average Joe" asks for proof, the claimant is under absolutely no obligation to prove the patent has been filed. If a person who has been contacted with a cease and desist order until a licensing agreement can be negotiated, the claimant usually will reference the application number in the written notification. These legal announcements are usually used as a method of marking the date of notification.
There's no basis in the law for this assumption. NO US citizen can take someone to court on a civil matter unless they have damages that can be assayed and proven, and even then, there has to be proof that the damages were caused by the actions in question. We generally don't allow court time to be wasted when there's no measurable damages.
Generally speaking, you won't find a link that spells out scenarios that might happen in the event somebody manages to file suit for something that really can't happen in the first place. (I hope that made sense)
There are some general assumptions in your questions and scenarios that need to be addressed.
Assumption 1: Any average Joe can get involved in the patent process.
The truth: Well an Average Joe can... if the average Joe happens to file a patent. If Average Joe isn't the applicant, and has no skin in the game, he's not a part of the process.
Assumption 2: Any US citizen can file suit against a person that claims to have a patent pending on the belief that they have not filed.
The Truth: The ONLY US citizens that can file suit against a person or company claiming to have a patent pending are ones that have been damaged by the unlawful assertion of a patent pending status.
Zen~, thanks for the input! I admit much could be filled in on a potential scenario as I'm trying to paint with broad strokes. That does make it harder to tell why I'm asking, but there's a "showing one's hand" aspect to it that prompts me to be... circumspect.
I agree that the average "Average Joe" wouldn't really care one way or the other. But some Joes are creative types, come up with stuff and just put it out there for reasons of their own. And it is conceivable that someone with a less-than-squeeky-clean background as a vendor might try to make trouble of some sort or another for Creative Joe based on a claim of Patent Pending. Granted, it might not be much actual legal trouble if Creative Joe isn't selling, but there are other ways to cause a person grief and duress.
In such a case, one would think that Claimant Joe, trying to make a case against Creative Joe with a third party -- maybe trying to get Creative Joe's information removed some a web site, for example -- would as you advise provide some kind of proof such as the application number up front.
But if they do not, if they refuse to do so even when later getting in touch with Creative Joe himself, doing little but throwing around patent- and rights-related keywords and implying that lawyers will be involved ... should that not make Creative Joe suspicious of just what Claimant Joe is up to, thus giving Creative Joe reasonable and perhaps legal interest in whether or not there is an actual patent application in the pipeline?
I agree that the average "Average Joe" wouldn't really care one way or the other. But some Joes are creative types, come up with stuff and just put it out there for reasons of their own. And it is conceivable that someone with a less-than-squeeky-clean background as a vendor might try to make trouble of some sort or another for Creative Joe based on a claim of Patent Pending. Granted, it might not be much actual legal trouble if Creative Joe isn't selling, but there are other ways to cause a person grief and duress.
In such a case, one would think that Claimant Joe, trying to make a case against Creative Joe with a third party -- maybe trying to get Creative Joe's information removed some a web site, for example -- would as you advise provide some kind of proof such as the application number up front.
But if they do not, if they refuse to do so even when later getting in touch with Creative Joe himself, doing little but throwing around patent- and rights-related keywords and implying that lawyers will be involved ... should that not make Creative Joe suspicious of just what Claimant Joe is up to, thus giving Creative Joe reasonable and perhaps legal interest in whether or not there is an actual patent application in the pipeline?
Vapian, I loved the broad stroke scenario there...
If Unscrupulous Joe takes a swing (even by proxy) at Creative Joe and Unscrupulous Joe has not crossed his T's, Dotted his I's and filed his paperwork, then Unscrupulous Joe will have plenty of explaining to do in 18 Months when nothing publishes.
HOWEVER, If Unscrupulous Joe is REALLY Patent Pending Joe, but he is disliked because a bunch of meddling and libelous Jealous Joes don't believe he's Patent joe, then THEY (Jealous Joes)may end up on the hot seat with some explaing to do.
This often results in Well Intentioned but Misinformed Joes spreading ill will because the system doesn't work they way they believe it should, even though they think they are doing the right thing.
If I'm reading you correctly.
Were you at PEO Subs?
If Unscrupulous Joe takes a swing (even by proxy) at Creative Joe and Unscrupulous Joe has not crossed his T's, Dotted his I's and filed his paperwork, then Unscrupulous Joe will have plenty of explaining to do in 18 Months when nothing publishes.
HOWEVER, If Unscrupulous Joe is REALLY Patent Pending Joe, but he is disliked because a bunch of meddling and libelous Jealous Joes don't believe he's Patent joe, then THEY (Jealous Joes)may end up on the hot seat with some explaing to do.
This often results in Well Intentioned but Misinformed Joes spreading ill will because the system doesn't work they way they believe it should, even though they think they are doing the right thing.
If I'm reading you correctly.
Were you at PEO Subs?
Zen~,
I read you on all of that, which is why proof is a big part of the picture. Unscrupulous Joe may actually be unscrupulous in a number of ways outside of the P.P. question, but if P.P. is the target issue then Creative Joe needs some kind of proof to avoid becoming Libelous Joe (thanks for running with that, BTW!).
What an oddly specific question.
I did do some time at PMS 450 once upon a time. ...
I read you on all of that, which is why proof is a big part of the picture. Unscrupulous Joe may actually be unscrupulous in a number of ways outside of the P.P. question, but if P.P. is the target issue then Creative Joe needs some kind of proof to avoid becoming Libelous Joe (thanks for running with that, BTW!).
What an oddly specific question.
I did do some time at PMS 450 once upon a time. ...
Vapian... you seem more like a PMS 415 guy....
ANYWHOOOO.... fortunately for Creative Joe, there are lawyers than can handle this sort of thing. If I found myself in the position of Creative Joe, and Unscrupulous Joe contacted me to cease and desist, I would have my attorney (BTW, ALL creatives types should have one on deck for just this sort of problem) contact the attorney of Unscrupulous Joe, and negotiate a license fee. My attorney would then instruct me to PLACE INTO ESCROW the fees as they were generated, as per our agreement, and when his patent issued, he would then (and ONLY then) receive the fees. This License agreement would have a provision in it that would render the agreement null and void if the patent never issues, with exact dates of execution . No patent, no money!
Now, to avoid becoming Libelous Joe, this is simple... Creative Joe, and ALL of his friends need to let the system work as it was intended. They ALL need to avoid comments and print statements that could appear to be acts of Libel or Slander, even if they are outraged by the behavior of Unscrupulous Joe. Two wrongs will never make a right, and the system actually works very well if we allow it to. We ALL have to avoid trying these cases in the court of public opinion, because NONE of us are likely to be Judge Joe or Jury Joe, and ultimately they will decide how much trouble Unscrupulous Joe has created for himself if he is indeed running a scam. If Libelous Joe can't keep his disdain to himself, Judge Joe and Jury Joe may CERTAINLY be willing to assign damages to Unscrupulous Joe shoud it turn out he is really Patent Joe... A well intentioned but misinformed Joe can find himself in a small craft at Sea State Six in a really big hurry, and that never turns out well!
ANYWHOOOO.... fortunately for Creative Joe, there are lawyers than can handle this sort of thing. If I found myself in the position of Creative Joe, and Unscrupulous Joe contacted me to cease and desist, I would have my attorney (BTW, ALL creatives types should have one on deck for just this sort of problem) contact the attorney of Unscrupulous Joe, and negotiate a license fee. My attorney would then instruct me to PLACE INTO ESCROW the fees as they were generated, as per our agreement, and when his patent issued, he would then (and ONLY then) receive the fees. This License agreement would have a provision in it that would render the agreement null and void if the patent never issues, with exact dates of execution . No patent, no money!
Now, to avoid becoming Libelous Joe, this is simple... Creative Joe, and ALL of his friends need to let the system work as it was intended. They ALL need to avoid comments and print statements that could appear to be acts of Libel or Slander, even if they are outraged by the behavior of Unscrupulous Joe. Two wrongs will never make a right, and the system actually works very well if we allow it to. We ALL have to avoid trying these cases in the court of public opinion, because NONE of us are likely to be Judge Joe or Jury Joe, and ultimately they will decide how much trouble Unscrupulous Joe has created for himself if he is indeed running a scam. If Libelous Joe can't keep his disdain to himself, Judge Joe and Jury Joe may CERTAINLY be willing to assign damages to Unscrupulous Joe shoud it turn out he is really Patent Joe... A well intentioned but misinformed Joe can find himself in a small craft at Sea State Six in a really big hurry, and that never turns out well!
Last edited:
....I saw the "chill" coming early on page 1 of this thread...too bad a civil discussion was desired by the OP...and the "libel", "slander" and inuendo posts shows up......sorry to say.....I'm out of here.....my apologies to the OP.....I will delete this if you like roly.....
Also deleted my questions...the disclaimer I posted on ECF earlier applies here as well.....
Also deleted my questions...the disclaimer I posted on ECF earlier applies here as well.....
Last edited:
No it's OK.
Anything related to patents can be discussed here. There are several directly opposing views, all need to be heard (there isn't really any other centralised place here to do it). As long as discussion remains civil, and no insults start being made.
This situation is very fluid right now, we need to know what people's views are. ECF is already being dragged into it so it's not something to be left for the future, it's happening now. The next phase is attorneys wrangling, then court cases no doubt. That seems to be a year or so away, just now.
The points of interest seem to be:
1. How can the smaller western firms that have invented or developed new products protect themselves from big corp grabups.
2. How does the modding community feel about patents on things that were in essence community developed, and how can those new products be protected.
3. Is it right for one firm to claim a patent on something that someone else may have suggested or even worked on.
4. How will licensing be done among the small manufacturer community; will it be accepted; will it be affordable.
5. Can someone who patents a product and will not license it at an affordable rate, remain a member of the community.
6. What will the ECF involvement be when two firms start a fight to the death here.
...and more besides. All these things will come up sooner or later.
Anything related to patents can be discussed here. There are several directly opposing views, all need to be heard (there isn't really any other centralised place here to do it). As long as discussion remains civil, and no insults start being made.
This situation is very fluid right now, we need to know what people's views are. ECF is already being dragged into it so it's not something to be left for the future, it's happening now. The next phase is attorneys wrangling, then court cases no doubt. That seems to be a year or so away, just now.
The points of interest seem to be:
1. How can the smaller western firms that have invented or developed new products protect themselves from big corp grabups.
2. How does the modding community feel about patents on things that were in essence community developed, and how can those new products be protected.
3. Is it right for one firm to claim a patent on something that someone else may have suggested or even worked on.
4. How will licensing be done among the small manufacturer community; will it be accepted; will it be affordable.
5. Can someone who patents a product and will not license it at an affordable rate, remain a member of the community.
6. What will the ECF involvement be when two firms start a fight to the death here.
...and more besides. All these things will come up sooner or later.
Damn, I was hoping vaping armageddon would be a few years off -- Big Tobacco/Pharma is stalking and waiting for the right time, we all know that. ECF has to remain neutral IMO to be the open discussion platform it is (for the most part); its the community developed ideas and modifications that will be so hard to untangle, I don't know how that could be done without hurt feelings -- and wallets.
That being said, if the patent holder doesn't let the mom & pops to use the patent for a reasonable price (as it is extremely dubious that any idea was developed independent of here and other fora) the vendor is an ..............
That being said, if the patent holder doesn't let the mom & pops to use the patent for a reasonable price (as it is extremely dubious that any idea was developed independent of here and other fora) the vendor is an ..............
Well I started following this thread and haven't said anything. but the main reason I'm watching is to see how the group feels about #2 & #3 in the above. but more to do with right and wrong, not about legal or not. As is asked in #3. Sure I admit I got all frizzed off about it. and feel that I have just learned not to post ideas here. So there is my 2 cents and I will go back to watching.
Here's an interesting article on Patent Pending marking. I'm still slogging through some of it and cross referencing with a copy of current patent laws myself, but figured it might make interesting reading for others in the mean time:
The Insufficiency of a “Patent Pending” Mark: The Logic of § 287’s Notice Requirement
Still brooding over some of the ECF involvement questions/concerns. Seems to me ECF would (or should) just be a medium and essentially "above the fray" ... which may just be a reflection of my ignorance about the subject.
The Insufficiency of a “Patent Pending” Mark: The Logic of § 287’s Notice Requirement
Still brooding over some of the ECF involvement questions/concerns. Seems to me ECF would (or should) just be a medium and essentially "above the fray" ... which may just be a reflection of my ignorance about the subject.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
