Opinion ID: 696351
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Maintenance Fees

Text: 7 Under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 41(b), enacted in 1980, maintenance fees are due on issued patents at certain times during their maximum terms. Failure to pay a maintenance fee within six months of one of the required times results in expiration of the patent. Under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 41(c) (1988), the Commissioner can accept late payment of a maintenance fee if the delay is shown to be unavoidable. 1 The Commissioner may not, however, exercise his discretion in determining what qualifies as unavoidable delay in a way that contradicts the purposes of the statute or is completely contrary to reason. Rydeen, 748 F.Supp at 904, 16 USPQ2d at 1880, (citing Commissariat a L'Energie Atomique v. Watson, 274 F.2d 594, 596-97, 124 USPQ 126, 128 (D.C.Cir.1960)). 8 Pursuant to PTO regulations, a delay in paying a maintenance fee can be shown to be unavoidable if reasonable care was taken to ensure that the maintenance fee would be paid timely. Additionally, the patentee must enumerate the steps taken to ensure timely payment of the maintenance fee, the date and the manner in which the patentee became aware of the expiration of the patent, and the steps taken to file the petition promptly. 37 C.F.R. Sec. 1.378(b)(3) (1984). 9 In considering whether to reinstate a patent for failure to pay a maintenance fee the PTO has stated that: 10 A late maintenance fee is considered under the same standard as that for reviving an abandoned application under 35 USC 133 because 35 USC 41(c)(1) uses the identical language, i.e. [,] unavoidable delay. Decisions on reviving abandoned applications have adopted the reasonably prudent person standard.... In addition, decisions on revival are made on a case-by-case basis, taking all the facts and circumstances into account. 11 In re Patent No. 4,461,759, 16 USPQ2d 1883, 1884 (Dep. Ass't Comm'r Pat.1990) (quoting Smith v. Mossinghoff, 671 F.2d 533, 538, 213 USPQ 977, 982 (D.C.Cir.1982)). Thus, in determining whether a delay in paying a maintenance fee was unavoidable, one looks to whether the party responsible for payment of the maintenance fee exercised the due care of a reasonably prudent person. See Douglas v. Manbeck, 21 USPQ2d 1697, 1700, 1991 WL 237823 (E.D.Pa.1991), aff'd 24 USPQ2d 1318, 1992 WL 162547 (Fed.Cir.1992) (table); In re Mattullath, 38 App.D.C. 497, 514-15 (D.C.Cir.1912).