[simonh]

It depends what the “simultaneous filing of the CSP” was simultaneous with. If it was simultaneous with letting the patent expire that makes no sense. If it was simultaneous with the original filing of the patent that does make sense.

[bawolff]

Based on the gov website it sounds like it has to be filed within 120 days of filing the patent, so i guess its the latter.

It might not be as nonsensical as the alternative, but I still dont understand how the CSP filing makes it any less likely letting the patent lapse was a mistake.

[simonh]

I think it's interpreted as meaning that the company is generally committed to patent protection, and so if they let it lapse in this case despite several warning letters that it's more likely it was a conscious decision for commercial reasons. Which is what they claim. I don't think it's a particularly strong argument.

[bawolff]

Ah yes, the ole', it can't be a mistake because companies don't make mistakes therefor it must have been intentional.

I know you're not the one making the argument but it really is rediculously silly to argue that it must be an intentional action to not do something because in the past the company wanted to do the thing. While duh, a mistake by definition is something you dont want to do.