A System with Tricks and Traps?

Korsinsky v. Dudas, [07-1029](April 5, 2007][PER CURIAM, Shall, Archer, Gajarsa] NON-PRECEDENTIAL The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment against Korinsky in his suit against the Patent Office to have his patent reinstated after failing to timely pay maintenance fees.
BRIEF: Korinsky failed to pay the first maintenance fee on his patent due in April 1992. In April 2004, Korinsky filed a petition to have the patent reinstated, which was denied because it failed to show that the delay was unavoidable, and because if failed to include payment of the second and third maintenance fees which had also become due. Korinsky filed his request for reconsideration late, and attributed the delay to the fact that all of his assets were under joint control with his wife who had refused to permit him to pay the fees. The Patent Office denied his request for reconsideration, so Korinsky sued the Patent Office, the District Court granted summary judgment that his petition to reinstate. On appeal, Korinsky argued that the Patent and Trademark Office had designed a system with trick and traps that duped him into disclosing his invention and paying substantial sums only to have his invention confiscated, and that the patent system fails to promote the progress of science and the useful arts as required by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. The Federal Circuit found that the Patent Office procedures do not conflict with the Constitution, and found no error in the Commissioner's decision.