Comments on: Federal Circuit: Intentional Abandonment Equals Unintentional Abandonment?

By: LB

LB — Fri, 04 Oct 2013 12:35:09 +0000

More keys = more secure. Wow. What an incredible insight.I don’t think you know what you’re talking about, MM. This is in the context of asymmetric encryption, so your analogy to “passkeys” doesn’t work very well. This claim is also about authentication, not encryption. Using a public key to create a cryptographic signature is counter-intuitive.

By: anon

anon — Fri, 04 Oct 2013 12:00:28 +0000

A veritable Flash of Genius.

By: idlebidle

idlebidle — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 20:27:49 +0000

All the discussion of being “under Oath” or not is a red herring. It doesn’t matter. The PTO sets a window for payment of maintenance fees and a procedure to pay if they were unintentionally not paid. If you want to change your mind about abandonment within the window for payment, great. If you intentionally do not pay the maintenance fees at the end of the window, you are intentionally abandoning the patent. (As the patent owner, you understand this at the most fundamental level.) Thus, at that point, the patent should be in the public domain. Any other conclusion is untenable. Even if this is not a “defense” under Section 282, the patent should be unenforcable as of that date. Someone could still be liable for damages in the abstract as past damages would be available, thus, the patent could still be licensed. The abandonment would only affect the value of the license, not its ability to exist. Without reading the prior cases, I don’t see why the unenforcability issue could not be raised as a counterclaim even if it cannot be a defense to infringement.As far as the representation being inequitable conduct, if there’s no Oath, then that doesn’t look viable. I just think it shouldn’t matter at all because the court should just rule the patent dedicated to the public as of date x, despite prior efforts to revive. In other words, the petition is de facto non-operative because underlying representations were proven inaccurate.

By: hifederal

hifederal — Sun, 29 Sep 2013 16:59:59 +0000

When indegency is involved there is no such thing as abandonment there is only the inability to proceed with due diligence

By: Ned_Heller

Ned_Heller — Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:40:30 +0000

Why are you changing the topic to applications?Sent from Windows Mail

By: 6MMmmMM9

6MMmmMM9 — Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:24:00 +0000

The form requires no explanationThe “explanation” is that the application became abandoned by accident, not intentionally. It’s pretty simple.

By: 6MMmmMM9

6MMmmMM9 — Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:22:51 +0000

if the Director really wanted an explanation, he would ask for one.If the Director wanted abandoned applications to be revivable for any reason, he wouldn’t require applicants who have a duty of candor to state that the application was unintentionally abandoned.

By: 6MMmmMM9

6MMmmMM9 — Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:21:24 +0000

It is clear the Director does not want an explanation. Any change of mind is “unintentional.””Changing your mind” is exactly what is not allowed under the rules, according to any reaosonable interpretation of those rules. You are not allowed to abandon an application and then “change your mind.” You are only allowed to make a mistake that results in the application becoming abandoned without any intent, i.e., accidentally. That is precisely the opposite of what happened in this case.Newman just took the rule and threw it in the trash. Why? Because she felt sorry for the patentee. Boo hooo hooo hooo!

By: 6MMmmMM9

6MMmmMM9 — Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:17:16 +0000

there is no binding authority that defines “intentional” or “unintentional” in this context.Oh, please. There is no dispute here that the abandonment was intentional. The Navy wanted the case to go abandoned. And then it didn’t. That’s not “unintentional” by any reasonable definition, in any context. That’s just an unfortunate case of timing. Too bad.the “change of circumstances” in this case actually happened before,Completely false. “Circumstances” change all the time. Every microsecond, in fact. And it’s impossible for anyone to take them all into account. That’s why “changed circumstances” can’t be used to reverse an intentional abandonment. Of course it doesn’t matter when the circumstances change.

By: 6MMmmMM9

6MMmmMM9 — Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:11:42 +0000

using both the receiver’s public key and the sender’s private key to encrypt. That seems highly secureMore keys = more secure. Wow. What an incredible insight.