Patent decision

BL number

O/0947/25

Concerning rights in

GB2117637.5

Hearing Officer

Mr N Smith

Decision date

8 October 2025

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Response Design and Development Ltd

Provisions discussed

Patents Act 1977 sections 18, 20A; Patents Rules 2007 rules 28, 32, 107

Keywords

Rectification of irregularities, Reinstatement

Related Decisions

None

Summary

The applicant failed to file a request for substantive examination in time, and the application was subsequently treated as having been withdrawn. A request for reinstatement was filed more than three months after the expiry of the period for requesting reinstatement under rule 32(2), along with a request under rule 107(3) to extend that period.

The applicant’s attorney argued that established practice outlined in the Patents Formalities Manual (PFM) was to advise the applicant of the reinstatement process when the application was treated as withdrawn. Therefore, the failure to follow this guidance amounted to an irregularity of procedure which should be corrected under rule 107(3). Alternatively, if established practice was not to issue such guidance, then they argued that the failure to reflect that practice in the PFM was an irregularity which should be corrected.

The Hearing Officer found that established practice was not to issue communications by default in these circumstances, and that the guidance was consistent with this practice. He could identify no irregularity of procedure and concluded that there was no basis for exercising discretion under rule 107(3) to extend the period for requesting reinstatement under rule 32(2).

Full decision O/0947/25 187Kb