“I had a question asking about what situation does the PTO still investigate violotations of 37 CFR 1.56. I think the answer is in MPEP 1448″
1448 FRAUD, INEQUITABLE CONDUCT, OR DUTY OF DISCLOSURE ISSUES
The Office no longer investigates and rejects reissue applications under 37 CFR 1.56. The Office will not comment upon duty of disclosure issues which are brought to the attention of the Office in reissue applications except to note in the application, in appropriate circumstances, that such issues are no longer considered by the Office during its examination of patent applications.
…Form paragraph 14.21.09 should be used where the examiner becomes aware of a judicial determination of fraud, inequitable conduct or violation of the duty of disclosure on the part of the applicant independently of the record of the case, i.e., the examiner has external knowledge of the judicial determination. Form paragraph 14.22 should be used where, in the application record, there is (a) an explicit, unequivocal admission by applicant of fraud, inequitable conduct or violation of the duty of disclosure which is not subject to other interpretation, or (b) information as to a judicial determination of fraud, inequitable conduct or violation of the duty of disclosure on the part of the applicant. External information which the examiner believes to be an admission by applicant should never be used by the examiner, and such external information should never be made of record in the reissue application.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
I have this one on my today’s test. I believe the key is to understand (a) and (b) below. Also, know “external information…. should never be used by exmainer”
a) an explicit, unequivocal admission by applicant of fraud, inequitable conduct or violation of the duty of disclosure which is not subject to other interpretation, or
(b) information as to a judicial determination of fraud, inequitable conduct or violation of the duty of disclosure on the part of the applicant. External information which the examiner believes to be an admission by applicant should never be used by the examiner, and such external information should never be made of record in the reissue application.
so are a) and b) both correct, or is it only a) ?
a) and b) are from the MPEP, not answer choices. Maybe someone knows the phrasing of this question and possible answer choices.
I believe the first reply is not entirely correct. While an examiner should never use external information which the examiner “believes” to be an admission by the applicant, an examiner can use external information of a judicial determination of fraud, inequitable conduct, or violation of duty of disclosure in a rejection during reissue (via form paragraph 14.21.09).
MPEP 1448 does indeed explain that the PTO no longer “investigates” deceptive intent in a reissue. But, it does provide for a rejection on fraud, inequitable conduct, or violation of duty of disclosure issues in the “special circumstance” where there has been either (1) an admission or (2) a judicial determination of such (since there is no need to investigate).
Admission (use form paragraph 14.22)
– Limited to information “in the application record” (examiner cannot use external information of an admission)
– The admission must be explicit, unequivocal, and not subject to other interpretation
– The applicant can rebut by:
(1) providing a reasonable interpretation that would not lead to a conclusion of fraud
(2) arguing that the “admission” was not in fact an admission
Judicial Determination
– Can be from external information, “independently of the record of the case” (use form paragraph 14.21.09)
– Or from information “in the application record” (use form paragraph 14.22)
– I haven’t read anywhere that says this is rebuttable
I gopt a version of this question yesterday on my exam
I got a version of this question yesterday. I believe it asked in what circumstance it would be appropriate for the examiner to make a rejection based on fraud/violation of duty of disclosure. I picked the answer that said that the examiner had knowledge (not in the record) of a judicial determination of fraud or violation of duty of disclosure. I can’t remember most of the incorrect choices but one was that the applicant admitted that in related litigation, the other party had made allegations of fraud, etc.
I seem to have had a similar exam as Emily. I think I saw a lot of questions and answers has hers.
I had this with the same fact pattern.
The way I read all this is that the USPTO will not itself conduct an investigation. The only time they act on it is if the applicant itself admits or if there is a finding by a court.
All this fraud stuff is incredibly hard to nail down.
Got this question in today’s bar exam. One of the choices is examiner’s “internal” knowledge of judicial determination of fraud. One of the choices is applicant’s own admission of fraud.