InvestorsHub Logo

zombywolf

05/04/17 11:51 AM

#21200 RE: CO422 #21198

Even though you will be shown that Keough is completely wrong here and will be hammered with a punishing countersuit for knowingly filing an unwinnable case to harass and affect the rollout of Chris's products, that was a well reasoned post.

freestock

05/04/17 12:37 PM

#21206 RE: CO422 #21198

I have to admit co422 seems to have interesting knowledge here and has me thinking thanks for your insight makes me proceed more cautiously here always learning

Fasctrack

05/04/17 2:30 PM

#21226 RE: CO422 #21198

CO422 - Thanks, it makes sense re: legal distinction between an expired patent and an abandoned patent. If we assume for argument sake that Otiko cannot survive a chain of title argument or document any assignment of the IP, any thoughts about "Intervening Rights" in this matter? -

"A patent owner has 24 months to file for revival with the USPTO and pay both the maintenance fees and a revival fee (sounds like Keough failed this requirement). If this happens, 35 USC 41(c)(2) will probably give you intervening rights to sell the product anyway. You'll receive intervening rights if, in good faith, you invested money and went into production thinking the patent was now part of the public domain. Even you haven't started selling the product but can prove that you made substantial preparations to launch it, you might still qualify for intervening rights."