MPEP 2190: Difference between revisions
Lost Student (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "__TOC__" to "<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div>") |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==[[MPEP 2190|2190 Prosecution Laches]]== | ==[[MPEP 2190|2190 Prosecution Laches]]== | ||
<noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude> | <noinclude><div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div></noinclude> | ||
Unreasonable and undue delay in prosecution will lead to rejection of claims under a theory that the applicant has forfeited his right to a patent under the doctrine of prosecution history laches. ''In re Bogese'', 303 F.3d 1362, 1369, 64 USPQ2d 1448, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Applicant "filed twelve continuation applications over an eight-year period and did not substantively advance prosecution when required and given an opportunity to do so by the PTO."). | Unreasonable and undue delay in prosecution will lead to rejection of claims under a theory that the applicant has forfeited his right to a patent under the doctrine of prosecution history laches. ''In re Bogese'', 303 F.3d 1362, 1369, 64 USPQ2d 1448, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Applicant "filed twelve continuation applications over an eight-year period and did not substantively advance prosecution when required and given an opportunity to do so by the PTO."). | ||
While there are no firm guidelines for determining when laches is triggered, it applies only in egregious cases of unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution. For example, where there are "multiple examples of repetitive filings that demonstrate a pattern of unjustified delayed prosecution," laches may be triggered. ''Symbol Tech. Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., & Research Found.'', 422 F.3d 1378, 1385, 76 USPQ2d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2005). | While there are no firm guidelines for determining when laches is triggered, it applies only in egregious cases of unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution. For example, where there are "multiple examples of repetitive filings that demonstrate a pattern of unjustified delayed prosecution," laches may be triggered. ''Symbol Tech. Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., & Research Found.'', 422 F.3d 1378, 1385, 76 USPQ2d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2005). | ||
Latest revision as of 22:54, May 31, 2020
| ← MPEP 2186 | ↑ MPEP 2100 |
2190 Prosecution Laches[edit | edit source]
Unreasonable and undue delay in prosecution will lead to rejection of claims under a theory that the applicant has forfeited his right to a patent under the doctrine of prosecution history laches. In re Bogese, 303 F.3d 1362, 1369, 64 USPQ2d 1448, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Applicant "filed twelve continuation applications over an eight-year period and did not substantively advance prosecution when required and given an opportunity to do so by the PTO.").
While there are no firm guidelines for determining when laches is triggered, it applies only in egregious cases of unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution. For example, where there are "multiple examples of repetitive filings that demonstrate a pattern of unjustified delayed prosecution," laches may be triggered. Symbol Tech. Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., & Research Found., 422 F.3d 1378, 1385, 76 USPQ2d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
