Agency May Deny Patents if Inventors Delay Process, Court Says – Perry Cooper submitted an article on BloombergLaw.com about repercussions of a recent Federal Circuit case addressing prosecution laches, Hyatt v. Hirshfeld.
How to Get “Boxed-In” and Blow a Judgment You Received: Sleeping in the Bed You Made – Five authors, Amanda Murphy, Brooke Winer, Melissa Santos, Grodan Wright, and Thomas Irving, wrote an article posted on NationalLawReview.com reporting on the holding from a recent Federal Circuit patent case, Cap Export, LLC v. Zinus, Inc., where the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to set aside a judgment based on “affirmative misrepresentations” related to alleged prior art.
Recent Case Action Restores Confidence in Federal Whistleblowers – Mathew B. Tully reported on FedSmith.com that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit, Tao v. Merit Systems Protection Board, “has favorable implications for federal employee whistleblowers.”
Here is the latest.
Agency May Deny Patents if Inventors Delay Process, Court Says
In her article on Bloomberg.com about, Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, Perry Cooper reports that “[s]erial inventor Gilbert P. Hyatt may have forfeited his right to four patents by delaying his applications at the patent offices for decades.” Cooper noted that the Federal Circuit said “the trial court focused too much on the agency’s slowness in processing Hyatt’s applications, rather than Hyatt’s own conduct.” Cooper mentions that the “Federal Circuit sent the case back to the trial court to explain why his delay wasn’t unreasonable and unexplained” when the “patent office estimated it would take over 500 years to process Hyatt’s applications.”
How to Get “Boxed-In” and Blow a Judgment You Received: Sleeping in the Bed You Made
The writers of this article about Cap Export, LLC v. Zinus, Inc. explain the Federal Circuit’s decision to “[uphold] the district court’s grant of Cap Export’s motion to set aside the stipulated judgment” based on “affirmative misrepresentations” related to “alleged on-sale prior art beds.” They discuss takeaway lessons from the case, saying that this case “represents a dilemma for prosecuting attorneys.” Additionally, they state that “[o]ne thing the prosecutor can do . . . is to ask questions such as those presented . . . by Cap Export.”
Recent Case Action Restores Confidence in Federal Whistleblowers
In his article, Mathew Tully explains how the recent decision in the case of Tao v. Merit Systems Protection Board has “favorable implications for federal employee whistleblowers.” Tully reports that the Federal Circuit’s “decision to order a new MSPB AJ to be assigned on remand is rare.” Further, Tully explains that “the magnitude of that decision may cause the MSPB and its AJs to be more careful in dismissing whistleblower cases in the future” and that “[e]mployees should view the case as an example of due process and be encouraged to use their right to blow the whistle and assert their rights.”