tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post8716345970662299229..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: J 7/15 - Re-establishment for outside payment firmDeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-13335269301728041162016-12-08T10:47:44.117+01:002016-12-08T10:47:44.117+01:00Don't get me wrong, I think this decision is a...Don't get me wrong, I think this decision is a good thing. Payment firms are a reality of patent life. You do your best to manage risks but sometimes bad luck strikes. It is for those cases that reestablishment is there to save you.Sander van Rijnswouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-2724518054760543892016-12-08T09:36:24.785+01:002016-12-08T09:36:24.785+01:00There is a similar decision with the same context/...There is a similar decision with the same context/applicant, J 8/15.<br />Those two decisions should not be interpreted as lowering the requirements for re-establishment when using a separate agency for paying the fees. <br />Eventually, the benefit of the doubt was given to the applicant as there seem to have been a "turbulent" phase at the agency, whereby the applicant was left unaware of what was going on at the agency. <br />For once as well, a BA takes directly and unambiguously into account what has happened not in other courts, but in other patent offices with respect to re-establishment of patents from the same applicant/proprietor and the same fee payment agency.<br />May be the fee payment agency will have lost a client.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com