Here are the facts surrounding the expiration of Patent No. 6,754,297, directly from correspondence between Dean Janes and the USPTO. The '297 patent expired on June 22, 2008 for failure to pay the maintenance fee but that failure was not intentional. Imaging3 either forgot, or did not have the money, to pay the required fee. In fact, Janes tried to convince the USPTO to allow the fee to be paid after the '297 patent had expired, by blaming one of his employees for not reminding him that the fee needed to be paid. He also tried to argue that a computer glitch led to him missing the payment. The USPTO did not buy his argument and the patent expired for failure to pay the maintenance fees.
In addition, a careful reading of the claims for the '819 patent shows that it is a method patent only. By contrast, the '297 patent was for an apparatus. The '819 patent incorporated the technical disclosure of the '297 patent only. It is important to note that the property protection of any patent is limited to what is spelled out in the claims. Therefore, the '297 patent covered the imaging apparatus and the '819 patent covered the imaging method. By allowing the '297 patent to expire, patent protection for the device itself likewise expired.
A final note. It is illogical that anyone would allow a patent to "intentionally expire" as is being claimed here. The improvements claimed in the '819 patent would build upon, and not replace, the claims of the '297 patent. The latter claims are now in the public domain.
