Legille filed some patents in Luxembourg on March 6th.
Based on international patent laws, they had one year to file the patents
in the US in order to have them approved.
Legille's attorney waited until March 1st of the following
year to mail the applications to the US Patent Office (USPTO).
Leggille's attorney sent the application airmail, which
normally only takes two days to arrive. They were expecting the
application to get to the USPTO by March 3rd.
The USPTO later claimed that they didn't receive the
applications until March 8th, so the patents were denied.
USPTO based this claim on the fact that the applications
had been date-stamped on arrival with a big "March 8th" stamp.
Legille sued for a declaratory judgment that the
application had been received by March 6th, and just been mislabeled.
There was no direct proof of when the mail was actually
received.
Legille argued that there should be a presumption of
procedural regularity in how the postal service discharges their duties,
unless there was evidence to the contrary.
It was generally presumed that the post office delivered
mail at their regular speed.
The USPTO argued that there should be a presumption of
procedural regularity in how the USPTO handles incoming applications,
unless there was evidence to the contrary.
It was generally presumed that administrative agencies
such as USPTO stamped their documents correctly.
The Trial Court found for Legille in summary judgment.
The Trial Court found that the presumption that the post
office delivers mail in a timely manner was strong, and could only be
rebutted by actual evidence, and not by invoking another presumption.
Since the presumption was not effectively rebutted, the
case is decided via summary judgment. No need to ask a jury to weigh the
facts.
The Appellate Court reversed.
The Appellate Court found that there was a presumption
that mail will get delivered in a timely manner, but that was a rebuttable
presumption.
Rebuttable presumptions are rules of law
attaching to proven evidentiary facts certain procedural consequences as
to the opponent's duty to come forward with other evidence.
The presumption is merely to invoke a rule of law
compelling the trier of fact to reach a conclusion in the absence of
evidence to the contrary. If the opponent does offer evidence to
the contrary, the presumption disappears and the case goes to the
factfinder free of any rules.
Basically, a presumption is only appropriate if
there is no evidence at all that could go against it. If there is
evidence that goes against the presumption, then the presumption goes
away.
The Appellate Court found that the USPTO's argument was
sufficient to rise to the level of evidence to the contrary. That
meant that there was a question of material fact. Thus, summary judgment
is not warranted.
Basically, because both sides had a reasonable argument,
it was for a jury to decide who to believe. Summary judgment is only
appropriate when there is no question of material fact.
It is not the judge's job to decide which evidence is
best. He is only to determine that there is (or is not) evidence which
could support the positions, and then allow the jury to decide whose is
the stronger argument.
