|
Home.
È
Case Law FAQ Home È
Miscellaneous
Practice Issues
| 1.1: |
Third party
contact with examiners. |
| 1.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.1: |
Inequitable
Conduct and claiming unintentional delay. |
| 2.2 |
Intentional revival as defense
to infringement |
|
|
| 2.3 |
|
| 3.1: |
How to challenge
denied petitions. . |
| 3.1: |
|
Ethics
1.1: Is it improper to call an examiner
to advise him of prior art in a case you are not party to?
Yes.
CAFC, 2011, Radio Systems v. Accession Well, not
sure. See PatObv on this, Apr26.2011.
Abandonment, Unintentional delay, Unavoidable delay
2.1: Is unintentional delay delay that
was negligent or delay that was not intended as delay. Is it IC to say
seek revival on unintentional delay where the total delay was not unintentional?
Not sure I know. See the May12.2001 PatObv Aristocrat article below.
2.2: If the application was improperly
revived, is the patent invalid?
No
See PatentlyO May 12, 2011 Aristocrat v. IGT.
Petitions
3.1: What recourse do you have when petition is denied?
First, you cannot appeal to BPAI. Star Fruits [393 F3d 1277 (CAFC 2005)]
sued PTO in USDC E.D. Va. under APA for abuse of discretion. The appeal
goes to CAFC. Fat chance, the PTO's decision must be arbitrary and capricious to
be over-turned. . .
Back to Top of Page
A2.1:
Back
to Top of Page
Back
to Top of Page
|