[Patentpractice] "Good and Sufficient Cause"

Thu May 2 23:38:39 UTC 2024

Thanks, David.  Since others have indicated interest, I have also found:

To overcome Respondent's motion for judgment under Trademark Rule 2.132(a), Petitioner must show good and sufficient cause why judgment should not be rendered against it, failing which the petition to cancel will be dismissed with prejudice. The “good and sufficient cause” standard, in the context of Trademark Rule 2.132(a), is equivalent to the “excusable neglect” standard which Petitioner would be required to meet under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) to reopen its testimony period. See PolyJohn Enters. Corp. v. 1-800-Toilets Inc., 61 USPQ2d 1860, 1860-61 (TTAB 2002). In Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. LP, 507 U.S. 380 (1993), as discussed by the Board in Pumpkin, Ltd. v. The Seed Corps, 43 USPQ2d 1582, 1587 (TTAB 1997), the Supreme Court clarified the meaning and scope of “excusable neglect,” as used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and elsewhere. The Court held that the determination of whether a party's neglect is excusable is:
*3 at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission. These include... [1] the danger of prejudice to the [nonmovant], [2] the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, [3] the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and [4] whether the movant acted in good faith.
Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395. In subsequent applications of this test, several courts have stated that the third Pioneer factor, namely the reason for the delay and whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, might be considered the most important factor in a particular case. See Pumpkin, 43 USPQ2d at 1587, n.7 and cases cited therein.

Tri-Coastal Design Grp., Inc. v. Recckio, No. CANCELLATION 9206538, 2018 WL 2445473, at *2–3 (May 29, 2018)

Section 1.55(f) further provides that if a certified copy of the foreign application is not filed within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, and the exceptions in § 1.55(h) and (i) are not applicable, the certified copy of the foreign application must be accompanied by a petition including a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay and the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g). The Office is including a provision in § 1.55(f) to provide for the belated filing of a certified copy of the foreign application to provide a lower standard (good and sufficient cause versus an extraordinary situation) and lower fee ($200 petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g) versus the $400 petition fee set forth in § 1.17(f)) than would otherwise be applicable for a petition under § 1.183 to waive or suspend a requirement of the regulations in such a situation.

Patent and Trademark Office Notices, 1388 OG 211

From: David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2024 6:09 PM
To: For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Roger Browdy <RLBrowdy at browdyneimark.com>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] "Good and Sufficient Cause"

I know of nothing at the PTO (except a petition decision that simply ignored the issue after it was fairly raised -- jerks).   Here is the argument I made for "good and sufficient reasons" of Rule 116:

Rule 116 states a “good and sufficient reasons” standard, not an “unavoidable” or “could not have” standard.
            Similar language used elsewhere in the law suggests a very low standard.  In Bankruptcy Courts (which are also Article I agencies, like the PTO), “good and sufficient reasons” requires no more than some “articulated … findings and conclusions.”  In re Monarch Beach Venture, Ltd., 166 B.R. 428, 435 (C.D. Cal. Bankr. 1993)  “Good cause” is generally recognized as a low standard that may be satisfied by mere explanation of “confusion.”  Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416–17 (Sup. Ct. 2005).  To satisfy the Supreme Court’s “specific reasons” standard for granting extensions, the Solicitor General typically identifies no more than “the heavy press” of other cases.  Contrast Supreme Court Rule 30.4 with Solicitor General’s Motion of Extension of Time, Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 22-639 (Jan. 27, 2023).  “Good and sufficient reasons” does not require meeting some high burden of proof, or disproving all possible alternatives.  The Federal Register final rule notice, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (Aug. 12, 2004) offers no reason to believe that “good and sufficient reasons” in § 1.116(b)(3) means anything more than it means elsewhere in the law, or implies anything like an “unavoidable” or “could not have” standard.

On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 4:07 PM Roger Browdy via Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:
Does anyone know of or have access to any petition decisions that define “good and sufficient cause” for delay, for example, in filing of a certified priority document?  Or at least examples of what the Petitions Office is accepting as good and sufficient cause?  Thank you very much in advance.

Roger
--
Patentpractice mailing list
Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2foppedahl-lists.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fpatentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com&c=E,1,kq2oE-MtjnuOGPmVx4Jiis3LTyIaJ81lYIRH-_hKLqMi-EnnKez8ZQsD6n-U0XYLgT5jzFkLlBiNsncDAulUAGumwabU6DVjhL4-Aok-dFVrdGCeLjg,&typo=1>

--

[https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fci3.googleusercontent.com%2fmail-sig%2fAIorK4wRMgBgcdZCqTw68Gg6ihENvW6_y8dGBqYvnJwiaIyu6LO5a7IJ-cljKsueIE5uxXbT6s9MN5hE2lGU&c=E,1,kZ1Eq9UShOV-yxSHSVK6OJq5wbQhjRs8BmFriKoYsEcisvhs0GiEb2eQskgKqRsLIRnHbizbJXAIZ9o-tw7LK6xUPf3Nj4-T_mwgqi7ZKyICHQ,,&typo=1]
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.iam-media.com%2fstrategy300%2findividuals%2fdavid-boundy&c=E,1,cPjdfciKsmvVXcUqoIl2M929NNX2CTiOmQdI0GtdNKb46pXzsX3E-53d8HqFNmwvgvAx5x3kzl_hDuA84Us-MuohMYnPMq4ygeZoGC7sSLkvCBdaydM,&typo=1>

David Boundy | Partner | Potomac Law Group, PLLC

P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA  02459

Tel (646) 472-9737 | Fax: (202) 318-7707

dboundy at potomaclaw.com<mailto:dboundy at potomaclaw.com> | www.potomaclaw.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.potomaclaw.com&c=E,1,VhXdp6N179-4K5l-ALHiW8XQvNzD6bJK68cSGkDh7ztWZcpXGh4IqAL5SrzVmsZKpogm-ME3CpcN8qPKSZZELsdWoB0rlXqUKapKYuUN-g,,&typo=1>

Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fssrn.com%2fauthor%3d2936470&c=E,1,q2ntu5jRgs5IARtPJvd5MMhLWtSQODqo22pj57CObUI4jkmJODvDleYcMweaAiZ-a8WdA397atDDE1jZtJyj4yg99nJ1cpMmKHZAe0EyO3XWUGZqtNf4D2zscZej&typo=1>
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.keynect.us%2frequestCardAccess%2fUSA500DBOUN%3f&c=E,1,2n59TruyL9u5uwixkXJLXUNrWouRmC9hR8USymm0kGtjHX3Et5I5eHbMc-lbs1NHdB2EyFQYUG1LKgA4VjNoqgOjsGLZjFko5nfAqqZYK1hPqdIgaZc2prNNnQ,,&typo=1>

Click here to add me to your contacts.<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.keynect.us%2frequestCardAccess%2fUSA500DBOUN%3f&c=E,1,txP4CIrXfRsrmgOTx0gl7fYANYx-KHIOEJRV5eLa4imi_cmf8WkqzpGqTVXqX0A2mJhdUjLk0Hi2xX3ywA8MIeNO0PgTOms82mRbomKRJBD37PWef0xjWbQ,&typo=1>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240502/be7efb1e/attachment.html>