Using PTO's Standard Form For Unintentional Delayed Payment, Without Disclosing Why Unintentional Delay Occurred, Does Not Constitute Inequitable Conduct

In Network Signatures, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. 12-1492 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2013), the Federal Circuit held that using the PTO's standard form for delayed payment, without further disclosing why the unintentional delay occurred, does not constitute material misrepresentation with intent to deceive.  Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court's grant of SJ of inequitable conduct and remanded for further consideration.

The Naval Research Laboratory ("NRL") developed U.S. Patent No. 5,511,122 ("the '122 patent") and allowed it to lapse for nonpayment of the maintenance fee due to a perceived absence of any identified commercial interest.  Two weeks after the lapse, Network Signatures, Inc. ("Network Signatures") contacted the NRL and requested a license to the '122 patent.  The NRL immediately submitted the PTO's standard form to petition for unintentional delayed payment and revival.  The PTO granted the petition, and the NRL