« Ariad v. Lilly: Federal Circuit Grants En Banc Request to Challenge Written Description Requirement | Main | Reissue Applications over Time »
Aug 23, 2009
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.
Search & Share
Subscribe
Patently-O is the most popular patent law blog and a daily read for over fifteen thousand patent law professionals from every major innovative corporation, IP Law Firm and world patent office. Click the link above to receive an automatic Patently-O e-mail each morning with the freshest posts.
Recent Posts
- Ecuador's Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceutical Patent Rights
- Patently-O Bits and Bytes
- Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- Federal Circuit Affirms EDTex Ruling that Iovate's Muscle Building Patents are Invalid
- Nil: The Value of Patents in a Major Crisis Such as an Influenza Pandemic
- Vacatur: Judge Posner Agrees to Vacate Inequitable Conduct Holding Based on Settlement Agreement
- Patent on Tax Refund System Deemed Invalid under Section 101
- Post EBay Injunctive Relief
- Design Patents: Mueller & Brean
- Patently-O Bits and Bytes: New Job Openings
- Design Patents: Functionality and a Trade Dress Gap Filler
- A Brief Defense of the Written Description Requirement
- Nov 13, 2009 2:32:53 PM
- Tafas v. Kappos: Cleaning Up
- Survey of the Disruptive Impact of a First-to-File Switch
- Precedential BPAI Opinion Rejects Functional Claim Elements as Indefinite and Not Enabled
- Red Hat on Patents (VIDEO)
- Kappos Blog & First-to-File
- Bilski v. Kappos: Supreme Court Arguments
- Supreme Court Hears Bilski v. Kappos
- Business Method Patents: Technological Change, Not Judicial Activism
- Stays Pending Appeal
- Patent Prosecution Tips: Drafting Preambles
- Patently-O Bits and Bytes
- Abandoning software patents?
- Trademark Cancellation: Presumption of Validity includes Presumption of Acquired Distinctiveness for Marks Registered under Section 2(f)
- Federal Circuit: When are Subsidiaries Covered in a License Agreement?
- Challenging the Constitutionality of Gene Patents: Ass'n for Medical Pathology v. USPTO
- Stays Pending Reexamination
- Supreme Court Clustering of Patent Cases
Categories
- Academic Studies
- Accelerated Examination
- All Elements
- Amicus Brief
- Anticipation
- Articles and Publications
- Attorney Fees
- Best Mode
- Bits and Bytes
- Blogroll
- Book Review
- BPAI
- Business Developments
- CAFC
- Certificate of Correction
- Chemical
- Claim Construction
- Claim Drafting Tips
- Conference or CLE
- Contributory Infringement
- Damages
- Declaratory Judgment
- Design Patent
- Dissent
- District Court
- Doctrine of Equivalents
- EFiling
- En Banc
- Enablement
- Fees
- First Sale / Exhaustion
- Gaming
- Graham Factors
- Guest Post
- Indefinite
- Inducement
- Inequitable Conduct
- Infringement
- Injunctions
- Interference
- Invalidity
- Inventors
- Inventorship
- ITC
- Jurisdiction
- Law Firm Practice
- Lear Doctrine
- License
- Local Rules
- Means Plus Function
- Medical Device
- Method Claims
- Motivation to Combine
- Obviousness
- On Sale
- Patent Cases 2004
- Patent Cases 2005
- Patent Cases 2006
- Patent Cases 2007
- Patent Cases 2008
- Patent Cases 2009
- Patent Legislation
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Q&A
- Patentable Subject Matter
- Pharma
- PHOSITA
- Post Grant Review
- Priority Rights
- Procedure
- Provisional Patent Application
- Public Use
- Reexamination
- Reissue
- Revival
- Settlement
- Software
- State Immunity
- Statutory Construction
- Summary Judgment
- Supreme Court
- Takings
- Teaching Away
- TipCast
- Tools
- Trade Secret
- Transnational
- USPTO News
- Vitiation
Author
- Dennis Crouch,
Associate Professor
University of Missouri
School of LawOccasional guest posts by IP practitioners and academics
- Short Articles:
- Preferred Blog Citation: Dennis Crouch, [Title of Post], Patently-O, [permalink URL] (Date).
Recent Comments
- Ned Heller on Patently-O Bits and Bytes
- confused SCOTUS on Patently-O Bits and Bytes
- Ned Heller on Federal Circuit Affirms EDTex Ruling that Iovate's Muscle Building Patents are Invalid
- Paul F. Morgan on Patently-O Bits and Bytes
- Ned Heller on Federal Circuit Affirms EDTex Ruling that Iovate's Muscle Building Patents are Invalid
- NameChange on Patently-O Bits and Bytes
- Actual Inventor on Patent on Tax Refund System Deemed Invalid under Section 101
- NameChange on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- AdAbsurdem on Patently-O Bits and Bytes
- Ned Heller on Federal Circuit Affirms EDTex Ruling that Iovate's Muscle Building Patents are Invalid
- Cert Denied on Vacatur: Judge Posner Agrees to Vacate Inequitable Conduct Holding Based on Settlement Agreement
- TJ on Patently-O Bits and Bytes
- Ned Heller on Patently-O Bits and Bytes
- Dennis Crouch on Patently-O Bits and Bytes
- TJ on Patently-O Bits and Bytes
- NameChange on Patently-O Bits and Bytes
- Ned Heller on Patent on Tax Refund System Deemed Invalid under Section 101
- Actual Inventor on Patent on Tax Refund System Deemed Invalid under Section 101
- Malcolm Mooney on Patently-O Bits and Bytes
- Andrew Dhuey on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
Terms of Use & Disclaimer
- Terms of Use
- Patently-O on Facebook
Connect with Patently-O readers. -
-
Very cool map.
Posted by: Mark Nowotarski | Aug 23, 2009 at 07:40 PM
Hmm, can't find my name on it or several other people.
Posted by: Jonathan | Aug 24, 2009 at 02:29 AM
Can't find my name either. Hmmm.
Posted by: Missing | Aug 24, 2009 at 04:48 AM
Makes me wonder what database(s) is(are) used to populate the map information.
Posted by: Missing | Aug 24, 2009 at 04:50 AM
The database used is the official PTO nightly database. Email me privately your info and I'll look at the record and figure out why it's not there. ryandurham (at) gmail (dot) com
Posted by: Ryan | Aug 24, 2009 at 08:10 AM
The PTO nightly database is at ftp://ftp.uspto.gov/pub/attorney/attorney.zip
Posted by: Ryan | Aug 24, 2009 at 08:11 AM
Concur on lack of listing in database, for all three (3) patent attorneys in our firm, plus the other patent attorneys at two other firms in the same building. Our three attorneys are definitely in the txt file identified by Ryan (just checked).
Posted by: Missing in Houston | Aug 24, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Dennis,
Can you provide a statistical analysis of how often PAIR is down? The Office needs to quit devoting so much attention to their continuous redesign of their website and work on reliability, which seems to be getting worse over time.
Posted by: Znutar | Aug 24, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Missing in Houston: Let me know what the names are so I can work bugs out. The mashup is definitely in beta, so I'd love to get feedback to make it more robust :)
Posted by: Ryan | Aug 24, 2009 at 11:59 AM
This map has left out many significant names (including mine). How "cool" can it be?
Posted by: Practitioner | Aug 24, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Possibly used the wrong database, or else PTO is the problem. I'm in the Attorney and Agent Roster but not on the beta map.
Posted by: Jeff Spangler | Aug 25, 2009 at 01:30 PM
I'm looking into the issue of a few missing names. All the names that are "missing" are in the KML files passed to Google Maps, but aren't being listed as a point on the map. I'm not sure why a only a few particular entries are not being displayed, but I'm looking into it. I'm not discriminating against anyone ;)
Thanks for your patience if your name isn't showing up :)
Posted by: Ryan | Aug 25, 2009 at 02:20 PM
There's only one person at my firm listed. Is it possible that it is only listing one person per address? Why are some of the pins blue? But my name does not show up on the left either.
Posted by: broje | Aug 25, 2009 at 02:39 PM
UPDATE: in my testing I've found out that Google Maps has (an as yet undetermined) upper limit on the number of points displayed in a single map. So in more populous states (like CA and VA), a handful of people aren't showing up. I'm working on a workaround :)
Posted by: Ryan | Aug 25, 2009 at 03:03 PM
I just exchanged a series of emails with Ryan Durham about the map. As many people have commented there are attorneys/agents missing from the display. Apparently Goggle has a cap on the number of pins in an area and as a result numerous attorneys in heavily served areas, such as California, do not appear so it is inaccurate and misleading. I presume he is tracking down a solution to this problem
Posted by: Mike Ram | Aug 25, 2009 at 03:10 PM