[well you were up next anyway...] The below CFJ is 3771. I assign it to D. Margaux.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 12:30 AM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 25, 2019, at 3:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > > > I think the below is common sense if not directly obvious - do people > > agree or is a case needed? > > > > I CFJ: When a CFJ judgement finds that conditions for awarding a > > contested patent title are valid, that constitutes the "announcement > > of the authorizing conditions" for the REQUIREMENT to make the award > > in a timely fashion. > > > > Arguments > > > > R649 reads in part: > >> A person permitted and enabled to award (revoke) a Patent Title > >> SHALL do so in a timely fashion after the conditions authorizing > >> em to do so are announced, unless there is an open judicial case > >> contesting the validity of those conditions. > > > > If there is an open judicial case on the Patent Title conditions when > > the original time limit expires, and the judgement later finds that > > the conditions for the award were valid, then the options for > > interpreting this clause are (1) a retroactive setting of the timing > > requirement to the original announcement conditions, which is quite > > problematic, (2) an elimination of the requirement entirely, because > > the time limit never passes under the right conditions, which is also > > unintended, or (3) treating the judgement as the announcement of the > > authorizing conditions. Option 3 makes the best sense. > > Option 3 makes sense but seems unsupported by the text. Option 2 seems to be > what a straight forward reading would require.
