Last week the United States Patent and Trademark Office announced that the Office entered into a no-cost, two-year agreement with Google to make bulk electronic patent and trademark public data available to the public in bulk form. Under this agreement, the USPTO is providing Google with existing bulk, electronic files, which Google will host without modification for the public free of charge. This bulk data can be accessed at http://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html.
According to the USPTO, it does not currently have the technical capability to provide this public information in a bulk machine readable format that is desired by the intellectual property (IP) community. This arrangement is to serve as a bridge as the USPTO develops an acquisition strategy which will allow the USPTO to enter into a contract with a contractor to retrieve and distribute USPTO patent and trademark bulk public data. The contractor will be capable of acquiring this bulk data and providing it to the public.
“The USPTO is committed to providing increased transparency as called for by the President’s Open Government Initiative. An important element of that transparency is making valuable public patent and trademark information more widely available in a bulk form so companies and researchers can download it for analysis and research,” said Under Secretary Kappos. “Because the USPTO does not currently have the technical capability to offer the data in bulk form from our own Web site, we have teamed with Google to provide the data in a way that is convenient and at no cost for those who desire it.”
“We’re happy to work with the USPTO to make patent and trademark data more accessible and useful,” said Jon Orwant, Engineering Manager for Google. “It’s important to make public data easier to gather and analyze. And when the data is free, that’s even better.”
Currently, the patent data that is available from Google for bulk download is grant images, grant full text, grant bibliographic data, published applications, assignments, maintenance fee events, USPTO Red Book and classification information. Notably missing from this list, and what would have been extraordinarily useful, is Image File Wrapper data. According to the USPTO, they will be working together with Google to make additional data available in the future, including patent and trademark file histories and related data.
If you visit the Google bulk USPTO data site you will see that the data, volumes of it, is presented in zip format. Thus, the data will not likely be at all useful to individual users, but perhaps other commercial services will be able to finally access the data and create usable products. I say this because as good as Google is for many things it seems pretty clear to me that Google gets a project only so far before they lose interest, move on to whatever is next and leave an 80% solution behind. I have seen this over and over again with Google. As good and quick as Google Patents is, for example, it lacks easy to provide and fundamentally important features and is, therefore, not that useful. The same is true for Google Documents and other Google products. I guess when something is free you get what you pay for.
Prior to this arrangement with Google the USPTO’s public data in bulk form had been provided solely as a fee-based service. The USPTO estimates that nearly ten terabytes of information will be made available.
This is definitely a step in the right direction. I have long advocated getting USPTO information out to the public. This, however, is an interim step at best. The release of public record information without payment of a fee should not be minimized. It should have happened a long time ago, but better late than never. Having said this, now it will be up to industry to find creative ways to make this voluminous information searchable and usable. I just don’t see Google ever doing that.
Making this information searchable will not only lead to greater usability for those in the industry, but it should allow interested individuals to more readily build on the work of those who have come before. It will also allow for the proper indexing and preservation of this data for generations to come. Every great civilization has gone to great lengths to archive data. With the patent explosion that has occurred since the 1980s the amount of data became unwieldy in less than a generation. So hopefully in years to come we will look at this as a watershed moment, but much work remains to be done, and likely by entities other than Google or the USPTO.
Join the Discussion
14 comments so far.
Peter KramerApril 9, 2013 10:24 am
it’s been about four years since the PTO announced PAIR data would be more accessible and free. Bulk data without a CAPTCHA challenge for each item would be a welcome development. As of today that is basically an empty promise. Sure you can go to the Google Cloud and download IFW data that is over a year out of date. WTF is going on? And if you’re only interested in attorney agend data or transaction history, you still have to download the entire file wrapper zip file because the tsv files require Authorization to download. No matter how hard Obama pushes the PTO, the PTO is an organization with a long history of secretive culture. I expect I’ll be retired by the time the PTO ever lives up to its publicly admitted “Open Government and transparency obligations.” See for example, Solicitation Numbers DOC50PAPT1300005 and DOC52PAPT1000025 (which is history). I won’t hold my breath.
Raj AbhyankerJune 9, 2011 09:40 pm
Dear Jealous and Obsessed stalker,
Clearly you know nothing about patent law. You are (throughly) confused.
Patent applications, including continuations are not made public until 18 months after filing. As long as there is co-pendency, the parent can lapse. Lapsing a patent application like this without paying fees is a common practice to maintain co-pendency while continuations are prepared. Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) documents that you describe are separate filings, and anything in the description section citing prior art is a cited reference that needs to be perfected in an IDS. Filing fees are never paid for placeholder applications which serve as basis for priority filed continuations. In such cases, the parent cases are abandoned. That being said, whether we move forward in protecting this technology is not your concern.
The winners in this space are those that execute their software best, not those who have the most patent applications or issued patents.
CEO of Trademarkia.com
Colette PierreJune 9, 2011 05:39 pm
If you plan on filing a continuation of the wikipedia cut and paste patent, you better hurry up patent genius, because when I checked on it in the USPTO public pair website –
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair search for Patent application number: 20110066648
Date Transaction Description
06-09-2011 Email Notification
06-09-2011 Abandonment Mailed
11-30-2010 Abandonment — During Preexam Processing
– it shows that the patent was abandoned because you failed to pay the fees. Wow, great patent attorney work there man. Ironically, the notice of abandonment was sent to you TODAY, even as your patent genius mind typed “will file a continuation”! ohhhhh, my eyes are all teary and my stomach hurts from laughter!
i also see a pattern emerging here, each time you get caught lying you blame it on someone else, in this thread alone you’ve blamed campaign volunteers, non-existant 3rd parties interest groups, jealous ex employee and now a (jealous?) ex- pr writer. just curious, how would a trademarkia pr writer spontaneously think to use a fake beta tester in a pr statement and you never reviewed it? (sounds like a post hoc lie on your part). further, you actually put that lie in a patent application. do pr writers write the patents at your firm too? furthermore, i looked at an oath that you filed with the application where you signed a statement that says in part:
“I hereby state that I have reviewed and understand the contents of the above-identified specification,
including the claims, as amended by any amendment referred to above.
I acknowledge the duty to disclose information which is material to the patentability of this application in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 (attached hereto). I also acknowledge my duty to disclose all information known to be material to patentability which became available between a filing date of a prior application and the national or PCT international filing date in the event this is a Continuation-In-Part application in accordance with 37 c.F.R. § 1.63(e).”
I can’t help but notice that you swore to the patent agency that you saw the fake colette pierre quote stood by it. isn’t lying to the USPTO material to patentability? I would think so, so under your oath you should tell themm about how you suborned a dishonest quote in the patent application.
also, it is interesting that the oath is for a continuation-in-part, isn’t this an error as well?
abandoned application for failing to pay the fees, calling it a continuation when it isn’t, cutting and pasting blindly from wikipedia without even removing the citation numbers …. dude, your problem isn’t jealous employees, it is that your sloppy and make lots of mistakes. (btw, how does cut and pasting press releases and wiki articles teach someone how to make something that is supposed to be a new invention?)
one second… ohhhhh, my eyes are all teary and my stomach hurts from laughter!
i could go on, but i just got to stop here….. i’ll get a cramp from the laughing – just know that i tore up your post hoc ‘it was a bad pr guy’ lie.
anyway, don’t worry about me, i couldn’t really give a mouse fart about you, i’m just interested in pointing out your lies online, hell, if i ever get out to arizona, i’ll buy you dinner, as i really owe you one for all the joy this has brought me.
Raj AbhyankerJune 9, 2011 01:32 pm
Dear Jealous and Obsessed stalker,
Finally, something that we can agree on. It was a mistake for the PR writer to hide the real name of the real beta tester and attribute it to a character for Bonjour Crepe. That PR writer is no longer writing press releases for us. We have hired a new professional PR firm, SSPR. However, they do not participate in my spirited discussions with you. I can safely assume that you are not ‘Colette Pierre’ now?
The patent application you mention will be expressly abandoned, in favor of a properly drafted continuation case. That application was filed in haste because of a public release date, and is a mere disclosure of an idea. If you knew anything about patent applications, you would know that disclosures can describe prior art as well as what is new. As such, it is acceptable to include information from the public domain in disclosures written in haste (Wikipedia).
The disclosure of a patent application should just enable someone with skill in the art to make and use what is later claimed as an invention. The disclosure is not an invention. In fact, when writing a disclosure, it is important to describe the environment in which the invention operates. As such, discussion of background material in the disclosure is a common and necessary practice. That being said, it will be abandoned in favor of a better drafted continuation.
While I take pity on your troubled soul, I am dumbfounded by spirited (but pathetically incessant) dialogue. Clearly, our success eats away at you. Whenever Trademarkia or my law firm gets press coverage for our innovations; it just makes you angrier and angrier. Perhaps you should spend more of your time doing something constructive, rather than trying to bring down progress. Perhaps you should see a psychiatrist, or professional mental health professional?
Just know, I am from Arizona, and am not afraid of you.
Colette PierreJune 8, 2011 09:22 pm
“Your use of the name ‘Colette Pierre’ apparently is in reference to the character we created for the Bonjour Crepe Company restaurant. ”
Hey compulsive liar, if Collette Pierre is only a ‘character’ and never a dishonest avatar you put forth as a real person, then what is she doing being ‘quoted’ (i.e. your faking quotes from fake people) as a private beta tester in your trademarkia press releases? And I quote:
“Trademarkia’s management and engineering team is comprised of experts in Web technology, brand management and intellectual property. “This is a great product! It is fun to find interesting brands on Trademarkia that can help my small business succeed,” said Colette Pierre, a Trademarkia private beta user. “I recently registered my brand as a federal trademark, and it is important to the long term success of our small business to be able to monitor against companies trying to steal our goodwill. Trademarkia makes that process easy, and has already saved our company money.””
Hell, you even enshrined fake Colette Pierre’s fake quote in his trademarkia patent application!!!
Man, if you ever try and assert that patent, you have a dishonest representation by you right in the middle of it!! That’s got to be a bad thing.
Man, your such a pathetic sad liar…. oh …. my ……god. Every time you open your mouth, BOOM!, lies just drop out.
Did any early tweets also mention that you would be using a fake quote of a fake beta tester in a lie to the patent office?
I kind of have to admit that I am sort of ‘obsessed’ with you, in the same sense that when you see something really odd and don’t want to stare, but keep glancing despite yourself. I really want to stop pointing out your lies, but you keep coming in here and posting new ones. Stop man, please, just stop lying so I can get back to more productive things.
Also, this patent application appears to mostly be a cut and paste from the wikipedia trademark article (???) and incoherent rambling about Quaker Oats and Marlboro cigarettes. You couldn’t even be bothered to delete the citation numbers. I’m no expert in patent law, and Gene may want to pipe in here, but isn’t that just legal barfing? I mean a patent application with a fake quote by a fake avatar and a cut and paste from some wikipedia articles? Surely this isn’t a best practice? And you continue say how proud you are of your work as an attorney. Dude, my three year old daughter would do better.
Raj AbhyankerJune 8, 2011 06:25 pm
I am not ashamed of this mailer. The link that you cite describes a mailer that my City Council campaign supported in opposition of a candidate who wanted to build homes in the hillsides of Cupertino, and thereby tear down older growth trees in the process. Many neighbors living around this opposing candidate spent time and money showing up at Cupertino city council campaigns in protest of this candidate’s desire to build in the beautiful hills of Cupertino, and tear down old trees in the process, many of which took hundreds of years to grow.
There is clear record of that in Cupertino archives. For example, see article “‘Council draws the line to protect city hillsides’ in the May 7, 2007 issue of the Cupertino Courier (http://mytown.mercurynews.com/archives/cupertinocourier/20070509/news7.shtml).
Neighbors living around this candidate were upset. Many of these neighbors supported my City Council campaign as I believe that the hills around Silicon Valley need to be pristinely preserved for future generations. My campaign took responsibility for the opposition mailing through the stipulation you link to because we supported it. We did not originate it. I don’t even live around this candidate.
It is not my or my campaign’s (“Respondents” collectively as you correctly cite but oddly confuse with me solely) fault if the neighborhood group that sent it failed to properly register themselves. We were fined because we just needed to report our support of it, and this was the basis of the stipulation you try to confuse others with. We did not know that we had to report support for someone else’s mailer. We thought they should report themselves. Apparently we had to report our support of it. I did not and do not have the time or desire to argue it, or bring in private citizens into the mix. All we needed to do initially was to fill out a form, and we did not. Not a big deal. So, they fined us (excessively perhaps at $15K).
There was nothing intrinsically wrong with the mailer, and nothing dishonest about its content. The FPPC never said we created the mailer, or said that the message was off base. It just said that people were misled because we did not report our support of it. We just needed to fill out a one page form. The message on mailer directly quoted the Cupertino Courier articles, and the logo use was fair use as political speech. The mailer was legal, and the message it conveyed was important for voters to understand. I am proud of my support of the Cupertino foothills.
Those facts are not even in dispute, and your ramblings seem a bit insane. I’d be happy to defend my credibility in court for testimony purposes and my transparency with respect to this matter. As such, your comments regarding inherent dishonesty seem absurd.
I don’t know if I need to take pity on you because of your rampant jealousy and envy, or just ignore you. Clearly, you are not ‘Colette Pierre’. You, “hide, apparently too chicken to come out into the open” (Cupertino Courier). Your use of the name ‘Colette Pierre’ apparently is in reference to the character we created for the Bonjour Crepe Company restaurant. The very first tweets from Bonjour Crepe Company made it clear that ‘Colette Pierre’ was a fictitious character. Based on your repeated postings on blogs like this, I can only assume that you are a jealous attorney or legal service provider who is somehow obsessed with stalking me.
Attorney at Law
Colette PierreJune 8, 2011 04:46 pm
Also, the FPPC exhibit Abhyanker admitted to under law says:
“The mailer included sender identification information for a non-existent group, Residents for Quality of Life in Cupertino, and an address that was a post office box owned by a third party, Winnie Liu. The sender identification on the mailer said, “Residents for Quality of Life in Cupertino, P.O. Box 153, Cupertino, CA 95814.”
So, Abhyanker admitted to the law that the group was ‘non-existant’ and that Winnie Liu was indeed a 3rd party (i.e. not a member of his campaign). Was he lying to the FPPC when he admitted this under law or is he lying now in these comments?
If one does a Google search for the non-existent group(“Residents for Quality of Life in Cupertino”) Abhyanker now claims to have existed, there is only Abhyanker’s FPPC exhibit and a reply by the Latino candidate Mark Santoro in an editorial in response to the Abhyanker’s illegal attack. Santoro seems to not have heard of this group at the time either. Interesting……
“In the latest attack, a nasty “hit” piece was sent through the U.S. mail. This flier claims to have been paid for by the “Residents for Quality of Life in Cupertino.” I checked with the Fair Political Practices Committee (FPPC) and they could find no such group. This person (or persons) chooses to hide, apparently too chicken to come out into the open.
This misleading flier displays the Cupertino Courier logo not just on one side, but on both sides. I checked with the Courier and they said they had nothing to do with it. It appears that these chickens were attempting to gain credibility by using the Courier’s logo. ”
According to Santoro, who saw the filer, the flier even stole the Cupertino Courier logo – i.e. Abhyanker portrayed the attack piece with the Cupertino Courier logo. Wow, just wow, the mind boggles, and he now claims to be proud of breaking the law for ‘saving trees’. Does this guy have any ethics?
I tell you what, if anyone ever tries to assert any patent or trade mark Abhyanker worked on, opposing counsel can depose Abhyanker and ask him about these lies and inconsistencies under oath. We can then see if misappropriating fake interest groups, 3rd party Winnie Liu (and maybe even the Cupertino Courier logo) constitutes an act of inherent dishonesty that can be used to impeach Abhyanker. I say it does, what could be more inherently dishonest fake groups, other people’s addresses and fake newspaper endorsements?
Abhyanker, do you see how my post actually travels through the facts and cites sources. Unlike yours which rambles on about how your going to run for political office, blames unnamed volunteers, alludes to facts without citations?
Colette PierreJune 8, 2011 12:46 am
Wow, first class crazypants projection on the part of this Abhyanker character. He is ‘proud’ to have broken the law as an attorney? Then why did he wait for the FPPC to catch him? Why didn’t he go to them and admit guilt in the first place? Go and read the FPPC’s actually report that Abhyanker signed:
“After an investigation, it was determined that Respondents were responsible for the sendings of the mailer. Records obtained from the printer, Direct Mail Center, establish that Respondents arranged to have paid approximately $2,406.23 for the printing of 4,000 of these mailers in cash and that Respondents sent 2,750 mailers during the weeks before the election. On October 9, 2010, Respondents sent an electronic communication to the printer in reference to “The Santoro Postcard mailing,” Job Number 72630, that Respondents wanted to mail 2,750 pieces as soon as possible since absentee ballots were being sent out that day.”
See Abhyanker, the investigator found out that it was YOU (” On October 9, 2010, Respondents sent an electronic communication to the printer in reference to…”) that sent the mailing. Your such a crazypants moron if you believe we are now going to believe it was to ‘save the trees’.
Are we to believe that this “woman” who just happened to be the demographic Abhyanker needed to win was willing to spend $2,406 of her own money on a lower-tier candidate who couldn’t get elected? Or, are we to believe what Abhyanker told the State of California under oath, i.e. that it was him? Basically, Abhyanker, is a compulsive liar who can’t keep his stories straight. Read what he signed under the law and decide for yourself. Was he ‘protecting trees’ or seeking illegal political advantage?
Now, I’m publishing his lies in comments related to his attorney services because I feel that his clients need to know his character before they retain his services. Abhyanker made this a matter of public concern, not me.
Mr. Abhyanker, you should be ashamed to break the law and be fined a whopping $15,000. The first amendment doesn’t protect the kind of speech you engaged in when you dishonestly sent an attack mailer. Did you even go to law school or to clown school? Your ‘saving the trees’ excuse isn’t in the investigation, it is just another sad delusion you’ve cooked up because you can’t seem live in reality.
Also, to blame those who volunteered for his campaign. That really lacks class.
Raj AbhyankerJune 1, 2011 03:52 am
ps. I am not ashamed about the FPPC matter. I do not believe it is wise to cut down old growth trees in the Cupertino hillsides. The group that sent the mailer never formed it’s committee. The group that sent the mailer never registered itself, and my campaign took responsibility for its mailing for having helped support its message. I am not ashamed of not wanting to cut down old trees taking hundreds of years to grow in Northern California just to build large homes in the otherwise beautiful hillsides.
There is nothing inherently dishonest about it, and the poster about is squarely wrong. In case the poster forgets – in America, there is a strong 1st Amendment freedom of speech and political speech is strongly protected by the U.S. Constitution. I am proud to have fully helped resolve this matter for the FPPC. I believe that there are many technologies that can be applied to make government run more smoothly and efficiently at a local level, and I would like to see our country continue to lead the world in innovation and creativity.
Kind regards,Raj Abhyanker
Raj AbhyankerJune 1, 2011 03:03 am
This is Raj Abhyanker, and I am the CEO of Trademarkia and an intellectual property attorney in private practice. Sadly, an answer here attempts to personally attack my character without basis.
A comment here refers to a negative mailer that was sent against an opposing candidate during a local City Council campaign in which I was a candidate. Specifically, the comment relates to a mailer sent against an opposing candidate’s building a large home in the hillsides of Cupertino which required the removal of a number of large trees. It has nothing to do with Trademarkia or my law practice. Local campaigns in our area are run by volunteers and are intensely contested in our city. The group that sent the mailer never registered itself, and my campaign took responsibility for its mailing. I am proud to have fully helped to resolve this matter for the FPPC. I will run again for local politics again one day, and when I do so I will make sure that the volunteers who support my views conduct themselves transparently and with clear disclosure. Furthermore, racially/gender based comments in the poster above are inflammatory. There were no Latino candidates in the race. Nobody pretended to be a Chinese woman – a committee to oppose a candidate was not properly formed. There is nothing inherently dishonest about it, and the poster about is squarely wrong. I challenge him to really review the entire FPPC file, and his answers will be made clear there. I believe that there are many technologies that can be applied to make government run more smoothly and efficiently at a local level, and I would like to see America continue to lead the world in innovation and creativity.
My law firm created the Trademarkia.com website. Today, we are proud to represent more than 6,000 small businesses across the United States on trademark matters. All trademark registration requests through Trademarkia.com are handled by my law firm. I am licensed to practice law in California and before the United States Patent & Trademark office in good standing. I have an excellent track record for the quality of the legal services I have offered, and more than 40 endorsements on my LinkedIn profile.
I am proud of what we have built with Trademarkia and my track record as an attorney and individual. I do the best I can every day to make my clients happy and build interesting and useful software products that will be enjoyed by millions. I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to American innovation and growth through Trademarkia and my law firm.
Attorney at Law
JacobusFebruary 5, 2011 12:14 am
“Raj Abhyanker and Committee to Elect Raj Abhyanker for Cupertino City Council. Raj Abhyanker, a candidate for Cupertino City Council in the November 6, 2007, election, and his controlled committee caused to be sent just weeks prior to the election, mailers opposing another candidate, Mark Santoro, which failed to identify the senders of the mailers. They also caused to be made a cash expenditure for the mailer and failed to properly disclose other payments in connection with Raj Abhyanker’s candidacy in the November 8, 2005, and November 6, 2007, elections. $15,000 fine.”
tsk…. tsk…. looks like Mr. Abhyanker has had a run in with the law. Does this qualify as an act of inherent dishonest and thus would be used to impeach his character under the FRE? If so, I wonder if his clients know that calling him as a witness in a federal case could be…. problematic for them.
Additionally, pretending to be a Chinese woman by the name of Winnie Liu (read the state’s exhibit for the details of what Mr. Abhyanker did) in order to attack a Latino candidate under false pretenses is just really odd behavior.
JacobusJuly 1, 2010 02:12 pm
The CEO of trademarkia has claimed to be greater than Google. (?)
“[Y]ou grossly underestimate the technical challenge to build a site like Trademarkia. It is no small feat to build a massively scalable, n-Tier database, managing millions of image and logo records, that is hosted on multiple servers which is refreshed daily, and which is synchronized and fast.
Google has a patent search but not a trademark search. Why? Because building a search engine for daily changing trademark information is a much more difficult task that would require a significant investment of time, talent, and focus. ” – Raj Abhyanker – March 31st, 2010
I guess he will have to eat his words soon. Fate it seems is not without a sense of irony.
Jay FranzJune 9, 2010 02:09 pm
I am the Director of Business Development for Trademarkia. Thank you to the previous commenter for raising an important issue. Trademarkia has sought to continually advance the search possibilities with the USPTO data already available on our website. For example, rather than having users enter design codes to search logos, Trademarkia’s search allows users to simply type in terms that may comprise a logo design. Many law practitioners have told us this assists their paralegals a great deal and we are happy to offer our search for free. Further, please note that as a technology and search engine platform, Trademarkia only connects users interested in trademark filing with licensed attorneys who can perform this service for them, Trademarkia does not file trademark applications itself and is not a law firm.
We applaud the USPTO for its efforts to improve their search and we share their vision of providing increased transparency of public information. If anyone has more feedback, please feel free to email me directly at [email protected] or post here. I’m always happy to answer questions.
javasamJune 8, 2010 03:18 pm
Well, I guess Trademarkia is probably dead in the water. It seems their entire gimmick was providing access to the USPTO trademark image database, then duping ‘clients’ (the status of whether a user is a client of the law firm behind Trademarkia is confusing) into using the Trademarkia interface to pay to file for a registered trademark instead of the free USPTO interface. Now that the USPTO will soon have an improved user experience, what is left for Trademarkia to charge for?