The creative guys at PriorSmart (www.priorsmart.com) have created a very interesting tool for those of you frustrated by the PTO's bans on automated PAIR access. For a relatively small fee, PriorSmart will monitor the docket of any application, reexamination, or issued patent and then e-mail reports. To stay within the PTO's no-automation requirements, PriorSmart hires people to check the PAIR site and report on activities. Daily monitoring of an application costs $16 per month, a monthly report costs $4 per month. That price beats your paralegal. PriorSmart sees itself as filling a gap by allowing companies to "Track documents affecting your litigation or freedom–to–operate opinion; Monitor competitors en masse; [and] Be alerted to new continuations or divisionals."
- http://docs.priorsmart.com/
- Also, check out their search functionality at http://www.priorsmart.com/.
Ah, this reminds me of what Europe had, 20 years ago, with an outfit called “European Caveats”. Ancient history now, of course. These days, one registers with the EPO computer to get emails automatically. No paralegal, no Prior Smart, no fee, no delay, no fuss.
Thought about setting up a business to do this a couple of years ago – we decided potential risk of missing a monitoring event could have huge financial downside – also couldn’t get it within the $16/month range – good for these guys
I’m postin’ it anyway.
“has rendered any “order” in the patent law area,”
No I don’t, they specifically removed any order to the system that they could, because the patent laws demand it. The don’t ignore the laws, they interpret them without an eye to making them make sense and fall neatly into place when they plainly do not.
“isn’t right either. As I told you in a different post, “a man has got to understand his limitations.” You don’t seem to understand yours. Again, you’ve been warned for a second time.”
I’m still pretty young. It is up to us to be invincible and up to you old guys to stick to your ways. I find myself sticking to my ways (which is usually the old way) more and more often.
“I don’t reflexively disagree with every statute or ruling that makes patents harder to get. What I want is to know what the law is so I can advise my clients and help them make good decisions about whether getting a patent is worthwhile. The CAFC and the Supremes lately have been making abrupt sweeping changes to patent law that frustrate me. When something like KSR or Bilsky comes down, patents I have prosecuted over previous decades are suddenly in question. I can write future applications and claims with the new law in mind – but then how can I feel confident that that law won’t reverse course or set out in some new direction in a few years?”
I tell you Jen I almost feel sorry for you attorneys who have their work called into question by the changing law, but in this case it is altogether too hard. It was your own fault for buying into the hardcore TSM rubbish when the truth of the statute is written for all to see. It should have been 100% impossible for any good attorney to not see that, and adjust their arguments accordingly. The question that you, and a whole lot of other attorneys need to ask yourself is: Why am I incapable of making the correct determination as to what the law actually says without relying almost solely on soundbytes from the CAFC/USSC? The answer is most likely because you’re allowing yourself to be sloppy. Actually, strike that, it is because you’re being sloppy.
D I’m going to have to ask you why you went and deleted a whole post right in the middle of my typing a comment? Law professors are no longer on the move.
I think this is a great, and we do this but from another source. Although the idea of bulk downloads are nice, the server times have greatly improved since they stopped (or at least they did for awhile).
Can the Office set up a separate FTP site for bulk downloads? There would seem to be no downside to that approach.