Beginning April 18, 2023, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is shifting towards issuing paper waste-reducing electronic patent grants (eGrants) to patent recipients—a new process that delivers the official copy of patent grants in an electronic format. We will provide a bound paper version as a ceremonial copy throughout a limited transition period, and then for a nominal fee thereafter.
The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 200 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in August 2023 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:
| Registration No. | Word Mark | |
| 6835527 | BUYIMMI | |
| 6827817 | I’M NOT YOUR KITE BITCH | |
| 6827793 | GATORADE, G, GIT | |
| 6827776 | SOULFUL KITCHEN | |
| 6827602 | GATORADE THIRST QUENCHER |
The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 159 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in July 2023 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:
| Registration No. | Word Mark | |
| 6797981 | BETTER OFF SINGLE | |
| 6797949 | THE SOCIAL JUSTICE GAME A GAME ABOUT CENTS & SENSIBILITY | |
| 6797815 | DELL COVE | |
| 6791703 | PLATFORM (A PRODUCTION COMPANY) | |
| 6782465 | L L |
The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 267 Trademark Registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in June 2022 based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:
Reg. No Word Mark
| 6791703 | PLATFORM (A PRODUCTION COMPANY) |
| 6782465 | L L |
| 6782459 | DESIGNSPINE |
| 6783940 | MIRES METHOD |
| 6782252 | I |
| 6774926 | NO PUP, NO PROBLEM |
| 6768187 | NCAA MARCH MADNESS |
| 6760355 | GET A MATED SET IN SECONDS |
The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 168 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2022, based on applications filed by Indiana Patent attorneys:
| Patent No. | Title | |
| 1 | PP0033,910 | Peony plant named `RTPIV 849-04` |
| 2 | PP0033,909 | Peony plant named `RTPIV 849-01` |
| 3 | D0941,959 | Faucet |
| 4 | D0941,780 | Contact wafer |
| 5 | D0941,779 | Electrical connector |
The United States Patent and Trademark office announced the Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response (DSMER) pilot program is designed to evaluate how deferred applicant responses to subject matter eligibility (SME) rejections affect examination efficiency and patent quality as compared to traditional compact prosecution practice. The program was initiated in response to a letter from Senators Thom Tillis and Tom Cotton.
Participation in this program is by invitation only. You may receive an invitation to participate if your application meets the criteria specified in the Federal Register notice announcing the program. These criteria include requirements that:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has seen a historic surge of new trademark filings over the past year, along with an increase in suspicious submissions ranging from inaccurate to fraudulent.
On January 5, 2022 the USPTO posted a Federal Register Notice that the Commissioner for Trademarks has established an administrative process for investigating submissions filed with the USPTO in trademark matters that appear to violate the Trademark Rules of Practice, including the rules concerning signatures, certificates, and representation of others in trademark matter before the USPTO and/or the USPTO website’s Terms of Use; and imposing sanctions, as appropriate. Under this process, when a submission appears to violate the Trademark Rules of Practice or the USPTO website’s Terms of Use, the USPTO will issue administrative orders that may result in sanctions being imposed. Sanctions may include:
The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 152 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2021 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:
| Reg. Number | Word Mark | |
| 1 | 6257028 | SUNRISE DRUM |
| 2 | 6256982 | THE TUBE |
| 3 | 6256782 | E |
| 4 | 6256766 | SOFABSOAPS |
| 5 | 6256731 | ENPOM |
October 17, 2019. The US Patent Office has issued an Update on “Subject Matter Eligibility.” These Guidelines are used by the Patent Office to determine whether patent claims are eligible for protection under 35 USC 101.
Patent claims satisfy § 101’s eligibility requirement unless they are directed to an abstract idea (or other ineligible principle) and fail to add any inventive concept. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208 (2014). In particular, claims that recite a specific advance in computer technology—including, for example, an unconventional arrangement of computer components—are eligible.
It is notoriously unclear to understand how should be applied. For example , Judge Plager of the Federal Circuit (and former Dean of the School of Law and Indiana University – Bloomington) has stated that the “body of doctrine” is “incoherent,” “render[ing] it near impossible to know with any certainty whether [an] invention is or is not patent eligible.” Interval Licensing LLC, 896 F.3d at 1348 (Plager, J., concurring and dissenting). Other jurists have noted that the case law is “baffling,” “inconsistent,” and that “needs clarification by higher authority, perhaps by Congress.” Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC, 927 F.3d 1333, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 890 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has opened for comments and suggestions on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Boards Standard Protective Order. The new order went into effect in June of 2016. Submit comments or suggestions on the Standard Protective Order to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Boards website.
The USPTO is considering changes to the Standard Protective Order, which is used to protect confidential information that is disclosed during the course of a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding. The standard order is modifiable on a case-by-case basis by order of the Board or agreement of the parties involved. It provides a number of standard terms to bind parties and witnesses and prevent disclosure of confidential information they may have learned.
In June 2016 the Standard Protective Order was updated to its current form. Changes made at the time included making the order automatically imposed in Board proceedings, and recommending the parties execute a binding agreement.
Indiana Intellectual Property Law News