When you file your patent application, you automatically achieve ‘patent pending’ status. You can mark your product as ‘patent pending’ and use ‘patent pending’ in advertising and product packaging. For some inventions, particularly consumer products, ‘patent pending’ status can be a valuable marketing tool and can help your product vie for attention in the marketplace.  When the patent application is finally issued or denied, you lose ‘patent pending’ status. If maintaining ‘patent pending’ status is more important to you than receiving a decision from the PTO finally issuing or denying your patent, then deferred examination may be right for you.
Deferred examination is based on a little-used provision of U.S. patent law that allows the applicant to defer PTO examination of the patent application for three years from the earliest filing date of the application. Since the PTO review time for patent applications commonly exceeds two years, deferred examination can extend ‘patent-pending’ status to more than five years from the date of filing. Several requirements and limitations apply to deferred examination and are listed under 37 CFR §1.103(d). The current deferred examination program has been used for fewer than 200 applications since its introduction in November, 2000, and the PTO is considering expanding the deferred examination program to help ease the application review burden. For more information follow this or contact Robert Yarbrough.
–Robert J. Yarbrough, Esq.
Yes, that’s correct.   According to the The U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP), a bureau of the Department of Homeland Security, trade in counterfeit and pirated goods threatens America’s economy, U.S. workers, national security and the health and safety of consumers.
In our Internet-enabled world, businesses that do not operate their own web site are the exception, not the rule. Web site owners constantly strive to create dynamic, interesting content. Sometimes, the courts rule they have gone too far even when the legal ice is very thin. Slate, the online daily, recently reported the following. A real estate web site, BlockShopper, posted this headline: “New Jones Day Lawyer Spends $760K on Sheffield.” The headline was linked to the purchaser’s bio on the web site of the prestigious Chicago law firm of Jones Day. Some weeks later, BlockShopper ran a similar ad linking to another lawyer’s bio also posted on Jones Day’s web site. When BlockShopper refused to take down the advertisements, Jones Day sued it on a trademark theory, alleging that viewers would be confused into believing that Jones Day was affiliated with Blockshopper. Given that real estate records are public records and the attorney’s bio’s were available to anyone to view, BlockShopper believed that it had done nothing wrong.