Fwd: Looking for applications delayed a LONG time by examiner misfeasance

[David Boundy]

Dear colleagues --

I am working on a brief for the Hyatt prosecution laches case (described a couple days ago at https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/03/19/supreme-court-must-revisit-prosecution-laches-industry-should-speak-up/ ).  The argument I want to make is that applications are unconscionably delayed by two different things (a) PTO inaction and nonfeasance, and (b) PTO misfeasance that causes wheel-spinning.  I can find the former from various databases.   But I need your help with the latter.

I am looking for applications that were delayed at least three years by an examiner who acted, but acted in a way that creates delay.  Examples would be an examiner who failed to engage with arguments, or an examiner that kept changing positions paper after paper (the whack-a-mole scenario).  There may be other patterns.  A useable example ends with you eventually winning without meaningful amendment to the claims, so we can say with great confidence that the delay is essentially 100% due to examiner misfeasance.   The PTO will respond in their brief "well why didn't you just appeal," so the "kept changing positions" situation is better than the "no engagement with arguments" situation.  But I'll take whatever you've got.

Do you have such an example that I can cite in a brief to the Supreme Court?  I have a couple, but I need a couple more that aren't me.

Thank you

--

     

Listed as one of the world's 300 leading intellectual property strategists

Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470

Click here to add me to your contacts.

David Boundy

DBo...@cambridgetechlaw.com / +1 646.472.9737

Cambridge Technology Law LLC
686 Massachusetts Avenue #201, Cambridge  MA  02139
http://www.CambridgeTechLaw.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/DavidBoundy

mailing address

PO Box 590638

Newton MA   02459