USPTO cancels in-person meetings

From The PTO: Until further notice, examiner and examining attorney interviews, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) oral hearings, and other similar in-person meetings with parties and stakeholders scheduled to take place at USPTO offices on or after Friday, March 13, 2020 will be conducted remotely by video or telephone. Parties will receive further instructions on how to participate by video or telephone in advance of the interview, hearing, or meeting.

If you have any questions, please contact the following:

  • For patent examiner interviews, please contact the examiner or the examiner’s supervisor (SPE) directly. Additionally, if you have any questions about telephonic or video interviews in general or are unable to reach the examiner or SPE with respect to a particular interview, please email:
  • For trademark examining attorney interviews, please contact the managing attorney.
  • For PTAB oral hearings, please contact or call 571-272-9797.
  • For TTAB oral hearings, please contact or call 571-272-8500.
  • For other in-person meetings, please contact your USPTO point of contact for that meeting.

54 thoughts on “USPTO cancels in-person meetings

  1. 11

    The most important thing right now is for companies to be spending lots of money and time making sure that their vaccine development programs aren’t infringing any patents.

    Especially the 283 Coronavirus correlation patents i filed two years ago which cover pretty much every context imaginable for deciding when to treat.

  2. 10

    Another interesting post would be something about the US trying to buy the vaccine rights of a company whose work was funded by the EU (public funding to promote tech innovation? how quaint!).

    1. 10.1

      Indeed! America First! The man in the White House is offering whatever money it takes to acquire exclusive use of the vaccine, I understand.

    1. 9.1

      This certainly seems like one of the rare times that March In rights would come into play.

      Maybe having those “coronavirus correlation” patents that you jest about above would come in handy about now.

      Which of course would only poke holes in your curse-aides…

      1. 9.1.1

        As to poking holes in Malcolm’s typical mantra…

        (from that other blog):

        Asked by IPWatchdog CEO and Founder Gene Quinn whether the coronavirus pandemic may be a wakeup call to those in power about the importance of incentivizing innovation in the life sciences area, Judge Michel noted that experts in the vaccine industry have indicated that China now dominates vaccine research and production.

        For all of my personal detractors, let’s watch Malcolm’s reply.


          “Judge Michel noted that experts in the vaccine industry have indicated that China now dominates vaccine research and production.”

          That has the ring of truth. It’s consistent with the theory that the virus came from a bio-warfare lab in Wuhan.

  3. 7

    OT, but a demonstration that it IS possible to squeeze some real juice from Apple if you squeeze long and hard enough [10 years?] with good patents, and accumulate interest for post-trial delays:
    “VirnetX™ Holding Corporation (NYSE AMERICAN: VHC), an Internet security software and technology company, announced today that it has received payment of $454,033,859.87, representing the previously announced judgment with interest in the VirnetX Inc. v. Apple case, 6:10-cv-00417 (“Apple I”).”
    Assuming the Apple check clears this is a near record confirmed actual infringement damages payment. Nearly half of the payment of the defendant Kodak in the Polaroid v. Kodak patent suit. [Not to be confused with some prior reports of high jury verdicts in other patent suits that were not yet appealed.] [Nor to be confused with the total business disruption costs for the losing defendants in some patent suits.]

    1. 7.1

      … and what ‘analysis’ was put forth to distinguish these as “good patents”…?

      That they held up?
      Something more?

      1. 7.1.1

        I could be wrong, but it seems that anon enjoys taking pot shots at whatever anyone says.


          Rational, sane people recognize them as empty pot shots. He calls them “counter points.”


            Does anon call them “counter points”? I thought that anon’s victory capitulations didn’t have a name. By “victory capitulation”, I mean asserting that someone just doesn’t understand patent law (i.e., claiming victory) instead of providing a substantive rebuttal (i.e., capitulation).


              NS, you nailed anon’s mental-illness “victory capitulation,” as perfectly demonstrated in his answer to your statement. I know it’s hard for sane folk to follow, but he calls his empty “nuh, uh” pot shots, when he first jumps in to say everybody’s initial statement is wrong, “counter points.”

              When he cannot defend any of his vague postulates on the law he pounds the table and makes stuff up about those he cannot answer — I again refer to his reply. Discussion of the pathology that tells him that works is beyond the scope of this blog.


                Lol – is that your current line of work, Shifty?

                Maybe instead of your own empty Accuse Others you actually respond to some of the conversations directed to me that draw you (like as in well over 95% of your posts are explicitly drawn to me).

                You always seem to only play games or run away. That does not seem to be an accident.

                1. I’m not running away; I’m right here. I’ve explained for the sane what “counter point” means to you. I can’t do the same for “Accuse Others.” In your own words, what does your oft-repeated phrase “Accuse Others” mean to you?

                2. Ok, let’s assume my explanation about what you think is a “counter point” was “clear error.”

                  In your own words, what does your oft-repeated phrase “Accuse Others” mean to you?

                3. Q: In your own words, what does your oft-repeated phrase “Accuse Others” mean to you?

                  A: What is your current line of work? Why do you run away from that?

                  Thanks for clearing that up. I had no explanation.

                4. Why do you ask “in your own words” when you know that you are not going to accept my words?

                  And clearly, my question to you precedes your question here.

                  What are you afraid of in revealing what your current line of work is?


              NS II,

              How much does your own post here fall to being characterized to be the very tactic that you are accusing me of?

              Another example of someone living in the shards of a former glass house….



          I certainly like to challenge people (and there is ALSO times where I will agree, and yet attempt to differentiate).

          But you need to pay attention on a repeat basis to get a better understanding.

          Perfect example are the two posters that replied to you above.

          NS II has for quite some time now piped up on many topics in an anti-patent viewpoint, and has been quite wrong in what he shares.

          Likewise, the poster with the historical pseudonym penchant (and he shifts frequently between them — even sometimes talking to himself) has like a plus 95% rate of ONLY directing his comments to me, and not only plays games, but plays them p00rly, and is routinely taken to the woodshed.

          Don’t be like these two.



          You do not help yourself with a comment like this coupled with you disappearing from the blog at several points of conversation.

          Dialogue involves engagement from multiple sides, and disagreement IS often the sharper path to clarity. What you call “pot shots” more reflects weaknesses in positions that deserve to be explored in a critical manner. Instead of whining, ALL would be better served with engaging on the points — acknowledging those that you cannot overcome and providing counter points for those that you think that you can overcome.

          Be better than just a whiner.

      2. 7.1.2

        What other valid test for a good patent is there than a well fought suit and appeal by top litigation firms on all possible validity and infringement issues? Mere personal opinions?


          What is an “other?”

          Well, given how few patents are actually “battle tested” as your one path would provide, I certainly hope that you think that the existence and level of the presumption of validity is there for a reason.

          (And don’t you think that it is a little shallow to insert “mere personal opinion” as if anyone had ever actually advanced that as ‘the test’…?)

  4. 6

    OT report, but of possible interest to some “death of U.S. origin applications” arguments:
    “Patent applications filed at the European Patent Office (EPO) rose 4% to 181,406 in 2019, … The United States was the number one country of residence of applicants, with 46,201 applications—a rise of 5.5%. This accounted for 25% of all European patent applications. ..”

    1. 6.1

      Thank you, Paul.

      US-originating filings rose by 5.5%. That’s a greater increase than the overall figure of 4%. The more striking, I think, given the prominence amongst the EPO’s Top Ten Applicant corporations of the leading names from China and Korea.

      To be provocative, one might suggest that East Asia have their Leading Names but not much else whereas the USA have both Top Ten names and a stable or increasing number of Top Hundred filers.

      What more do you want, as an indicator of the enduring strength of the US economy, US competitiveness, US technical innovation?

      In other news today, when Italy cried out to its EU Member States for help with the Corona virus, with rush supplies of face masks and anti-infection clothing, what happened? Nothing from any other EU country but plane loads from China straightaway. That of course is because China (unlike EU Member States) has no fear of upsetting its voters by diverting some of its medical supply inventory to Italians.

      Democracies, let’s be careful out there, lest all sorts of bad things happen while we sleep.

      1. 6.1.1


        Ever hear of Paul Harvey and his tagline “…and that’s the rest of the story.”…?

        Your posts often remind me of that.


          No. Never heard of him. So I Googled him. I read that his radio audience peaked at 24 million Americans. That’s an awful lot of people.

          So, for that reason alone, it is good to know then, that my posting style reminds you of his.


            Your posting style reminds me of what he used to combat.

            The memory is not a positive attribution to your techniques of throwing material against a wall to see what sticks.

            It’s a bit sad really that I would have to point this out to you.


              For example here, the attempt (without more) of comparing a Rest-of-Europe response with a response from China is fraught with unstated suppositions, facts, nuances, and a missing “Rest of the Story.”


                anon, do you really expect everyone to write a complete treatise in every post?

                1. Not at all RS.

                  But you do appear new here. It is not so much ‘lack of treatise,’ but more so a very particular slant (you can even call it spin) from the sAmeones who post.

                  I suggest that you observe the patterns before wanting to screech out.

      2. 6.1.2

        As to:

        What more do you want, as an indicator of the enduring strength of the US economy, US competitiveness, US technical innovation?

        I would take care to distinguish between US ‘proper’ and large multinationals that merely may currently have as their corporate base the US.

        The large multinational may enjoy juristic personhood in the US, but they certainly differ in actual loyalty to (fealty to) and being reflective of the US Sovereign as would an actual person.

        I invite you to understand Corporatocracy and the dangers thereof.


          Well yes, of course. The corporate legal personality is nothing else but a psychopath. It cares only for the interest of the shareholder, and nothing else whatsoever. But despite all that, without them we would be less well off.

          The thing is though, in the totalitarian regimes of the world, any notion of a home-based but independent corporate personality is a sham. In reality, loyalty is to the State, 100%, always.

          Democracies can restrain the psychopathic tendencies of their own corporations. Best example perhaps the New Deal? Getting the balance is tricky though. Enough to oblige them to pay their fair share of the costs of the general welfare and the decent society of which they are a part, but not so much as to cripple their efforts to survive the competition from the totalitarian States.

          The UK is at the moment on a Race to the Bottom, intent on making London the world’s premier tax haven (and let everything else go hang). Unless the world’s democracies co-operate on taxation of the international corporations, they are all going to be eaten for breakfast by the biggest corporate entity of them all, the Middle Kingdom.

    2. 6.2

      Interestingly enough, I already provided a link to that story directly in conversation with Night Writer.

  5. 5

    What do you think will happen if the USPTO shuts down EFS-Web for a month or more and says anything due while they are closed can be filed the next business day they are open? Of course, you could always file by mail during the closure, but I’m sure there are a lot of people who have never done that.


          Fair enough question.

          My basis is the combination of several factors, including each of the distributive nature of the Patent Office (DC and four other regional branches), the large Corp of examiners not even at a regional branch (teleworkers), the fact of the matter that this type of work is both mental and detached from physical group interactions, and the nature of the work being such as behooves mere operating on a computer.

  6. 4

    The PTO needs to suspend or toll response times for the next couple of months. Having the PTO remain open will force many lower ranking workers like docket clerks and coordinators in firms and businesses to go into an office. Most attorneys can work remotely. Some firms do not have docketing systems that are cloud based and some have everything on local servers.

    1. 4.1

      “Having the PTO remain open will force many lower ranking workers like docket clerks and coordinators in firms and businesses to go into an office. . . . Some firms do not have docketing systems that are cloud based and some have everything on local servers.”

      So the United States Patent Office should not accept electronic filings because a few firms are still in the 20th century? Sounds like a personal problem for individual resolution. I’m curious; is there more to it?

  7. 3

    Unfounded hysteria . . . unless the closing of Disneyland portends armageddon . . .

    Calling Buzz Lightyear, calling Buzz Lightyear . . .

    1. 3.1

      Closing of public fora is less hysteria and more grounded in “flattening the curve.”

      Sure, there IS hysteria out there, and yes, this IS a pandemic. The immediate response may not mean that you (the Royal You) will escape coming down with the bug, but there is solid reasoning behind it, and it should not be confused with hysteria.

      1. 3.1.1

        The hysteria is in the markets bruh. Huge crash yesterday, big dip for buyers tho. Decent recovery today, but not entirely. That was after trumps speech. Might dip again monday.

      1. 1.1.1

        nah, just guessing from what I see in large meetings I would say in the lower 40’s maybe mid 40’s.

Comments are closed.