Patent decision

BL number

O/326/16

Concerning rights in

GB0621481.1

Hearing Officer

Mr B Micklewright

Decision date

11 July 2016

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

Provisions discussed

Sections 20, 20A, Patents Act 1977, rule 107, Patents Rules 2007

Keywords

Rectification of irregularities, Reinstatement, Section 20 period

Related Decisions

None

Summary

The application in suit was reinstated on 10 November 2009 following a failure to respond to an examination report. The Office followed its practice at the time and did not provide a new period for compliance. The applicant was not therefore able to amend their application but could only make observations. The application should have subsequently been terminated but the termination was never actioned. In 2010 Office practice concerning reinstatement following the failure to respond to an examination report changed so as to provide an applicant with an opportunity to amend their application. In 2015 the applicant, noticing that the application had not been terminated, argued that, given the change in practice, in the present case the period for compliance should be treated as having been extended so that the amendments proposed with the request for reinstatement could be considered. The hearing officer however held that no new period for compliance could be set in the present case, either under the reinstatement provisions of section 20A or under the provisions of rule 107 relating to correcting irregularities in procedure. He therefore ordered that the application be terminated.

Full decision O/326/16 88Kb