We've been following a series of hearings in Rein Tech, Inc. v. Mueller Systems, LLC, C.A. No. 18-1683-MN (D. Del.), a now-dismissed case where the inventor attempted to serve the expert witness but was excluded due to protective order violations.
The defendant later alleged that the same inventor again violated the protective order by continuing to prosecute another patent application in the same field, despite a prosecution bar.
In response, counsel for the inventor argued that the inventor did sign the prosecution document, but did not "prosecute" the patent:
Although signed by [the inventor], he did not prosecute the ‘454 patent application [Request for Continued Examination] and response that was submitted . . . .
D.I. 221 at 6, 8.
If you are wondering how someone could argue that signing a prosecution document is not "prosecut[ing]" the application, this may be your chance to find out. The Court first heard portions of that argument back in November, and set a hearing for 10:00 am on Thursday, January 14, Courtroom 4A, to take testimony from those who were involved in the prosecution.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
