Comments on: Q) Investigating Deceptive Intent

By: maggie

maggie — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:57:36 +0000

Checked by Ben at VA (8) Judicial things override everything – if the examiner has independent knowledge from judicial review that something is fishy, it is grounds for fraud or indecent conduct.

By: maggie

maggie — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:59:30 +0000

There are sections for Protest, Reissue and Reexam regarding this topic and I think the overarching message it this topic is not to be decided by USPTO examiner, rather it is one that is for the courts.

Which I think makes (A) correct.

By: maggie

maggie — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:20:56 +0000

Q: In what circumstance it would be appropriate for the examiner to make a rejection based on fraud/violation of duty of disclosure.
(A) Examiner’s “internal” knowledge of judicial determination of fraud
(B) One of the choices is applicant’s own admission of fraud.
(C) Competitor alleged inequitable conduct question in litigation.

??? Answer: Examiner being aware of a judicial decision of fraud

By: BigBadVoodoDaddy

BigBadVoodoDaddy — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:29:10 +0000

Sections 2010 and 2012 in the MPEP are more pertinent sections for this kind of discussion in my opinion anyways.
thanks

By: BigBadVoodoDaddy

BigBadVoodoDaddy — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:28:21 +0000

In addition to the ones above, for light reading :
also look at 2001.06 (c) where there is a section on litigation involving inequitable conduct and that it must be disclosed to the office.

By: Freds

Freds — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 04:06:03 +0000

Looks like PTO has a Parol Evidence rule going on in 1448. Yeah, judicial notice of party’s deceptive intent is adopted w/o investigation by PTO per 1448.

By: H

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:34:36 +0000

I agree that the correct answer is the one about the examiner being aware of a judicial decision of fraud. The other answer about it being admitted or brought up in other litigation is incorrect b/c “external information which the examiner believes to be an admission by the applicant should never be used by the examiner.” – MPEP 1448

By: patenttips

patenttips — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:11:15 +0000

The correct answer involved:

Examiner aware of a judicial decision of fraud….invalid patent by fraud.

By: ELS

ELS — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 16:51:20 +0000

Same here between (a) and (b). Went with b (found by court).

By: epep

epep — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 16:48:38 +0000

It came down to (a) and (b) for me as well. The tiebreaker for me involved the concrete nature of one of the two.

I think one of those said that something had been alleged by a competitor.. maybe A? B said that it had been found by the court.