> 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.
