United States Federal Circuit

Summary judgment in favor of defendant-Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office affirming his denial to reinstate plaintiff's patent for failure to pay the maintenance fee is affirmed where: 1) the denial of the request for reinstatement was neither arbitrary nor capricious; 2) there was no abuse of discretion as to a conclusion that unavoidable delay was not shown since the third-party legal title holder of the patent failed to exercise reasonable care in ensuring the payment of the maintenance fee; 3) even if plaintiff was equitable owner of the patent, defendant was entitled to rely on the record and base his decision on the title holder; 4) the district court did not err when it considered and rejected the evidence relating to plaintiff's purported mental disability and destitution; and 5) the district court did not err in sustaining denial of plaintiff's Rule 183 petition since it was discretionary.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/10/2008
• Published 06/10/2008

Judges

• LOURIE, Circuit Judge., Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Scott F. Yarnell, Hunton & Williams LLP, of McLean, VA, argued for plaintiff-appellant.   Of counsel on the brief were Donna M. Praiss, Elizabeth M. Wieckowski, and Eugene C. Rzucidlo, of New York, NY;  and George M. Macdonald, Law Office of George M. Macdonald, of New Canaan, CT.


• For Appellees:
  
• Mary L. Kelly, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, argued for defendant-appellee.   With her on the brief were Stephen Walsh, Acting Solicitor, and Thomas L. Stoll, Associate Solicitor.