USPTO Relaunches “Path to a Patent”

I got this email from the USPTO today, and I pass it along to you.

Path to a Patent quarterly series restarts January 12

Is your New Year’s resolution to file a patent? The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) eight-part recurring Path to a Patent series covers everything from intellectual property (IP) basics, to patent searching, to what you’ll need to draft and submit your patent application. 

This free, virtual series, which is hosted by USPTO regional officesstarts January 12 (2023) with the Path to a Patent, Part I: IP basics and will run through March 16.

Copyright and Public Domain Day 2023 … (Some of) The Best Things in Life Are (Now) Free!

Public Domain Day (which is always January 1) 2023 is the date on which all copyright protection in works that enter the public domain in 2023 expires.

Public domain works are works that have been released into the public domain by the copyright holder or, as with Public Domain Day, by the law of the country in which the work was created. This means that you can use these works without worrying about copyright infringement. Entry into the public domain, however, does not relieve you of the requirement to cite your source; even when that source is in the public domain, if you fail to cite, you plagiarize … and plagiarism gets you into academic honesty troubles.

Works entering the public domain this year include the last of the Sherlock Holmes stories, “The Jazz Singer,” and “The Best Things In Life Are Free” … together with “I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream for Ice Cream!”

Always be sure to get permission from the copyright holder if you plan to use a work in a way that requires their permission.

If you have any questions about copyright law or the public domain, call us at 518-371-4599 or schedule an appointment with us here.

How Do I … Register Copyright?

US copyright registration is done through the US Copyright Office. It is not done through the writers’ groups!! Yes, there is at least one writer’s group out there that you can register your work of authorship with, but that’s not copyright registration.

To actually register your copyright, you need to know a few things. First, you need to know what type of work of authorship this is. Is it a written work? A work of the visual arts? A musical work? A movie? Or is it some combination (movies contain music, for example).

Once you’ve got the type of work, you need to know who the author is. Maybe that’s you. Maybe it’s your employer. Maybe it’s someone else.

Then the Copyright Office’s registration bot leads you through a series of questions about the work and about the author … and about the speed with which you want the registration to process. Fair Warning: Unless you have some VERY specific reason, from a cost basis you do NOT want “special handling.” That raises your registration fee from less than $100 to well over $700. Don’t go there unless this work is on the courthouse steps being litigated.

After you’ve answered all of the Copyright Office’s questions, it’s time to pay them and submit your copies of the copyrighted work. They allow certain works to be electronically submitted; for others, you must mail two best copies to them. Yes, they give you a mailing label … which does not include postage. Also, remember to affix … as in staple or glue … the tracking tag to each copy you submit.

Once you ship the works off to the Copyright Office, you sit back and twiddle your thumbs until either you hear from the Office with questions for you or the registration certificate arrives in the mail. 

Put your registration certificate in a safe place. You’ll need it if you ever need to enforce your copyright.

Canadian Copyright Overhaul

Seems Canada is revamping its copyright laws. This is interesting, especially for visual artists in the collectors’ arena: the artist will be able to receive a portion of the sales proceeds from the sale of their works in some cases.

In most of the world, artists and authors receive royalties only for the first sale of their works or of authorized copies of their works (the “first-sale doctrine”). This means that once a work or authorized copy is sold, the artist or author has gotten his or her compensation for the work or authorized copy; the work is therefore free to be sold on the open market without bothering with paying again the artist or author.

This remains true in Canada (and in the rest of the world) for authors; you can still sell your copy of “Harry Potter” without paying J.K. Rowling a percentage of the sale price. Even a used bookstore can sell a used book without compensating the author, even if that copy of the book is a very collectable copy (a signed first edition, for example). But if artwork gets sold by a gallery or at auction, the artist cashes in if the sale is made in Canada.

Is this a good thing? That’s a “duh…yeah…” for the artist, especially for the collectable artist whose work sells for hundreds of thousands of dollars in the collectors’ market. If the artist is to receive a percentage of the sale (the Canadian group that represents artists, CARFAC, is pushing for a 5% royalty), the artist can end up profiting nicely from that work. But others may see this as the top of what can become a slippery slope. Why should artists and not authors benefit from this change? And, if authors also start to benefit, what happens when the law expands to the rare book collectors? Will they also have to pay a percentage to the author or the author’s estate until copyright expires?

Where does it end?

Understand, I’m all for artists and authors getting paid, and paid fairly, for their works of authorship; I’m just not convinced that this new law is the means by which to do that. Do I have another suggestion? Not really.

So we’ll wait and see what happens.

Copyright Claims Board Opens

The new Copyright Claims Board, or CCB, will hear certain copyright disputes involving claims of up to $30,000. Parties can now file a claim, opt out of a proceeding, reference CCB Handbook materials, and contact the CCB with questions on

No one is required to argue a dispute before the CCB; If you have a copyright claim, you can choose to go to federal court instead, and your respondent, should you choose the CCB, can opt out of the CCB proceeding. If the respondent chooses to opt out, you can still bring a lawsuit against that respondent in federal court.

You don’t need a lawyer to appear before the CCB; they take pro se matters. However, as in any legal matter, you know the old adage about the lawyer representing him- or herself… The Board hears claims related to infringement, declarations of non-infringement, and claims of misrepresentation in notices sent under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Further, even if your claims fall within one or more of the categories the CCB can hear, if the claim is more than $30,000, the CCB cannot hear it; the case, if it cannot be resolved, must go to federal court.

All CCB matters are conducted online; you do not need to travel to Washington, DC (the home of the Copyright Office) to have your matter heard. Hearings are handled through video conferencing.

If you have a copyright dispute that falls within the parameters of what the CCB can hear, this three-member tribunal, whose members have extensive expertise in copyright matters, gives you a streamlined alternative to federal court proceedings. It is designed to be less expensive and faster than bringing a case in a federal court. However, like all arbitration-like processes, the CCB’s decision is final. Except for abuse of discretion claims (where the CCB tribunal members abuse their power in deciding a case), once the case is decided at the CCB, that’s the end of it. You cannot bring the matter in federal court.

This is a useful device the Copyright Office has established. It will help to lessen the caseloads on the civil dockets of the federal courts. It will lessen the expense of settling disputes. And it gives some consistency to copyright arbitration, which is currently conducted under the rules of each of the 13 federal court circuits … and yes, those rules differ.

For more information about copyright and other intellectual property matters, visit Delain Law Office’s website.

Competition Is Good…Even For Government Service Providers

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has FINALLY expanded the vendor pool to meet its patent production requirements. The agency believes that the added competition will lower prices. Those lower prices may save the agency an estimated $150 million over the next ten years. Who knows? Maybe some of that savings will dribble down to the inventors who use the agency to receive patent protection.

Lower prices engendered by competition may save the USPTO an estimated $150 million over the next ten years. 

The protection of intellectual property is the main goal of the USPTO. They are responsible for examining, issuing and maintaining the registrations of patents and trademarks in the United States. Sadly, they as a government agency have been … ahem … a bit lagging in encouraging free-market competition. They are historically not good at encouraging free market competition amongst their own providers.

Delain Law Office, PLLC is a boutique law firm that concentrates in helping inventors, authors and businesses navigate the intellectual property landscape. Thus, the USPTO’s use of only one vendor for any of its mission-critical work is a concern.

For the last 50 years, the USPTO knew of only one vendor capable of meeting the specified requirements for capturing patent data. After a thorough and exhaustive competition process and the execution of a new contract, the USPTO now says they are “…confident that the addition of a new vendor will provide USPTO with the added support it needs to continue to meet or exceed the quality and quantity requirements while also removing the risk of a single point of failure for mission critical work.”

This transition from a single vendor to a dual vendor environment, the USPTO claims, will result in agency cost savings per patent, thus allowing them to advance their work throughout the agency to better serve stakeholders. 

The USPTO claims they encourage competition in business. And, slowly, they are moving toward putting their money where their mouth is. This addition of a competing vendor for patent data capture is one small step; I’d like to see more vendors admitted to the Club.

And I can point to at least one other instance where the USPTO favored one private company to the exclusion of all others, in violation of any government encouragement of free-market competition I’ve ever heard of. Specifically, when they first started their online portal for patent document filing, they REQUIRED a Windows interface on the client (user … my) end. This went on for several years. I, however, was and remain a Mac shop. I therefore was REQUIRED to go out and get a Windows machine (Windows running on Mac did NOT work for this) so I could file patent documents. You better believe I complained about the government favoring one private enterprise over another … and, lo and behold, the USPTO now allows both Windows and Mac to talk to the patent filing system. I do not know whether they allow any other operating system to talk to their filing system; I hope they do.

Twist to Claiming Copyright Protection

Valancourt Books, LLC v. Perlmutter et al.

Well … it seems US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, sitting in the US District Court for the District of Columbia (that would be in Washington DC) has added a new twist to the claiming of copyright protection. You have to register the work with the US Copyright Office to include notice of copyright protection in the work.

This could have … ahem … interesting fallout for things like websites and blogs.

You can read the opinion here.

Brief Background

Valencourt Books, LLC (“Valencourt”) is a very small (as in home-based), independent publisher that publishes rare, neglected, or out-of-print fictional works on demand. The works that Valencourt prints bear a copyright notice, but Valencourt does not register any copyright in the works it publishes with the US Copyright Office. Valencourt put copyright notice in its published books, but did not register that copyright and did not provide the Copyright Office with its requisite two copies. Under such circumstances, the Copyright Office takes the view that the claimant is claiming the protection of federal law without complying with the requirements of federal law. They can send out a demand letter and issue fines ranging from $250 per unregistered-but-claimed work to $2500 per unregistered-but-claimed work.

The Copyright Office issued its demand.

Valencourt replied that the requirement for copies runs afoul of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution and that no, it would not provide the requisite two copies to the Copyright Office because doing so was an undue burden on a very small business.

The Copyright Office, pre-litigation, countered this complaint by offering to accept electronic copies of the works, even though the works had been published (ordinarily, the Copyright Office requires printed copies to be provided for published works). However, Valencourt rejected the offer because they didn’t want any special treatment from the Copyright Office … the settlement proposed by the Copyright Office is an exception to the requirement and does not change the Office’s requirement for physical copies from other small publishers … and because the works were not already accessible in electronic format and getting them into that format would be an undue burden on Valencourt’s owners and employees.

Valencourt sued the US Copyright Office (Shira Perlmutter is the Register of Copyrights) claiming that the deposit requirement violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. The Copyright Office countered with the claim that Valencourt was claiming copyright protection without complying with the requirements for that protection.

Valencourt alleges that the Copyright Office’s deposit requirement is an unconstitutional taking of private property because “…the government is demanding copies of publishers’ works for its own use without providing compensation to the affected parties.” Compl ¶ 1; Pl.’ Mom. at 18. Judge Jackson didn’t buy it. Citing Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 US 986, 1007 (1984), she explains that SCOTUS precedent establishes that “…a statute that confers a “benefit” [like copyright protection – comment added] on a citizen may condition the receipt of that benefit on the submission of private property in exchange without running afoul of the Takings Clause.” Slip Op. at 11. So … the Copyright Office can indeed “take” the two best copies of the work to be copyrighted in exchange for copyright protection without violating the Takings Clause. This is no surprise; deposits of copyrighted materials have been required since the first US copyright law came into existence in the 1790s.

Deposit Requirement and Free Speech

This section of the case contains no surprises. The deposit requirement is not subject to strict scrutiny because it is entirely … ENTIRELY … content-neutral. The deposit requirement does not attempt to limit speech; the requirement is the same for any work being registered regardless of the content of that work. Also, the burden imposed upon the copyright claimant by the deposit requirement is hardly unreasonable in relation to the benefit the requirement confers on the public.

Copyright, Registration, and Notice

The interesting part of the case is the issue of the copyright notice in publications that are not registered with the Office. The Court hides this in its discussion of the Takings Clause, but it’s important.

Valencourt includes copyright notice in its books and thus (1) informs the public that the works are copyrighted, (2) deters potential infringers, and (3) removes any innocent infringement defense. The claiming of copyright is just as voluntary as is the registration for copyright, and, since the enforcement of copyright protection is limited to those who have registered their works (see 17 USC 411), copyright in unregistered works cannot be enforced. Because plaintiff does not volunteer to register copyright in the works and certainly does not volunteer to send copies of the works to the Copyright Office, Plaintiff does not get to claim, by including notice of copyright in the published works, the benefits conferred by its notice of copyright.

This is huge. Just think of all those websites and blogs out there that have a copyright notice on them that are unregistered. Suddenly, it’s clear that the existence of the notice can trigger the demand letter from the Copyright Office and the subsequent fines.


Court-Mandated COVID-19 Vaccination Could Cause Constitutional Chaos

COVID-19 electromicrograph

I got an email today from the New York State Bar Association with this text therein:

Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, during her coronavirus update today, responded to the pending lawsuits from several unions challenging the state court system’s mandatory vaccination requirement.

…[W]e look forward to demonstrating that the vaccine requirement is fully within our legal powers as a responsible, appropriate and necessary response to the serious threat that COVID-19 poses to the health and safety of our workforce, and the public we serve,” said DiFiore. “And while we hope that the legal challenges will be resolved shortly, it is important for everyone to know and understand that the employees represented by the unions that have secured temporary relief at this point will continue to undergo COVID testing on a weekly basis, so as to ensure a safe and healthy environment to the best of our ability.”

“DiFiore said she was encouraged by the fact that 97% of court staff who are not parties to the lawsuits have submitted proof of vaccination or a request for a medical or religious exemption. She said “almost all” of the state’s judges have submitted proof of vaccination or an exemption request. The court system’s vaccination mandate went into effect last Monday.

“Kudos to every single one of them for setting the example for our entire branch of government and demonstrating their commitment and leadership in doing what is right and responsible to safeguard the health and safety of the folks they work with, and the many thousands of court users and visitors who enter our buildings,” said DiFiore.

DiFiore also had a message for the “small minority” of employees who have refused the vaccination.

“[W]e understand and respect that they may have different views on this issue, but I want to make it absolutely clear that we have exhaustively studied, examined and discussed the vaccination question, and the bottom line is that all of the data and every factor we look at – whether it relates to science and public health or law and ethics – points to the same conclusion: vaccination of our judges and nonjudicial workforce is the responsible, proper and necessary course of action for our institution,” said DiFiore.”

This may get very interesting very quickly. The issue is that the New York State court system is a state agency; the courts are not a private enterprise. This state agency is requiring its employees to get a medicine pumped into their bodies … and it’s a medicine that not all of them want to receive. Thus, the problem of government interference with private matters … like healthcare … can easily come into play here. That interference can quickly rise to a constitutional issue under several of the Bill of Rights amendments. Court employees do, after all, have rights.

But just how far do our rights extend? Do we actually have the right to choose not to get vaccinated in the face of a world pandemic?

Let me point out that there are ample examples of mandated vaccination in the annals of US history, going all the way back to George Washington’s mandate to the people of the newly formed United States of America to get inoculated against smallpox (and that inoculation did not get nearly the testing that even the COVID19 mRNA vaccines got because the science to do the testing was not yet available). The mandates continue today through the school-based inoculation requirements (kids have to be vaccinated against several childhood diseases to attend public school). We dutifully get our flu shots each year (I’ve gotten mine for the 2021-22 flu season already).

Through mandatory vaccination, we have dramatically lessened the impact of several former scourge diseases. Smallpox lives only in a few vials in a couple of biohazard level 4 labs; measles, diphtheria, tetanus, mumps, rubella, and all the rest of the legion of childhood diseases against which we now vaccinate no longer kill or maim the vast numbers they used to do. Influenza still exists … and still kills … because that bug mutates very very quickly and the flu vaccine is an annual crap shoot as to which strains will be most active in the upcoming flu season.

Now we come to COVID19. This is a new bug. We haven’t seen it before 2019, and it took the world by storm. Millions of people have gotten sick; many have died; many have been left with long-term effects; many have recovered completely. Many are now vaccinated with a vaccine that appeared to be very quickly developed and approved … it took the COVID shots about ten months to wend their way through the Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) minefield of approval processing where it takes most new drugs several years. The patent world is abuzz with new COVID-related inventions; the trademark world is delightedly registering COVID19 drug names by the boatload.

The speed of that FDA approval process seems to be the problem for those many who have not gotten their COVID vaccines. And I get it. The theory is that this is a new drug … heck, an mRNA vaccine is a whole new type of drug … that we’re injecting into our bodies with little testing. Okay. That can be seen as a valid argument in the face of things like the thalidomide disaster in the 1950s and 1960s.

But the COVID vaccine is not thalidomide; mRNA is, in fact, a chemical manufactured by our bodies; it’s equivalent to the cars that bring cargo to a train; mRNA brings the amino acids that build our proteins to the protein manufacturing line (the “m” stands for “messenger”). The minimal risk an individual faces of developing a serious side effect from having an mRNA vaccine injected pales when compared to the threat to public health that unvaccinated people present. COVID is a proven killer; why would we not, en masse, take every conceivable precaution against transmitting and catching the disease? Are we really so self-absorbed that we cannot see our way clear to take steps to avoid infecting our families, friends and neighbors who may be especially susceptible to COVID effects?

As I have pointed out, there is a long history of public-health vaccination mandates regarding the containment of the spread of disease. COVID is just another example of a public-health vaccination mandate.

I’ve had my COVID shots. I felt rotten for a couple of days after the second shot. I have not yet gotten a booster because I am not yet eligible for a booster. That I am fully vaccinated is not a political statement; it is a public health statement. I do not want to infect others, and I do not want to be infected myself. The COVID19 virus does not care what side of the aisle you espouse; it infects Republicans with the same enthusiasm with which it infects Democrats.

It’s entirely your choice whether or not to follow the mandate and vaccinate yourself and your loved ones, but as the parent of an immunocompromised and very productive member of society, I will have something to say to you if my kid comes down with COVID and dies (and no, I do not exaggerate; my pulmonary-compromised kid is more likely than are many to go into COVID-related ARDS and leave the planet; she already has an ARDS history) because you decided to exercise your “right” to be a shedding germ factory.

The “right” is there for you to exercise control over what goes into your body. Your “right,” however, ends where mine begins. And I have the right to remain healthy, especially since we now have an effective vaccine. If you want to avoid vaccination, fine; wear your mask, keep your social distance, wash your hands very very often, and don’t infect me and mine.

The US Copyright Office Can Be Reasonable…

The US Copyright Office spent several days … 12-17 August 2021 … updating their servers. During that time no one could get onto the eCO servers to register a new copyright or to maintain a currently registered copyright.

They’re doing something about that. The Register has issued an accommodation for anyone who tried to access the eCO system during the outage. Click here for more information on how to access the accommodation.

Upcoming Copyright Office Event on 2/17/2021 to Honor RBG

This should be well worth attending. Sadly, I will miss the live stream, but I look forward to the YouTube event.

From the Copyright Office’s blog post:

“To celebrate Justice Ginsburg’s impact on copyright, join the Copyright Office on February 17 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. eastern time for “Copyright Office Presents: The Enduring Legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.” This virtual event will feature a conversation between Paul Goldstein of Stanford Law School and Jane Ginsburg of Columbia Law School on Justice Ginsburg’s jurisprudence. Cohen, West, and Wang will also discuss how Justice Ginsburg inspired their own copyright-protected works. While the advanced registration to attend the Zoom event has closed, the Copyright Office will also live stream the event on its YouTube Channel. No registration is required to view the live stream. If you miss the event, the video will later be available on the Office’s YouTube Channel.”