Patent decision

BL number

O/395/17

Concerning rights in

GB2462487

Hearing Officer

Mr G J Rose'Meyer

Decision date

21 August 2017

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Gareth James Humphreys

Provisions discussed

Section 28; rule 40(1)

Keywords

Restoration

Related Decisions

None

Summary

This decision concerns whether an application to restore the patent in suit can be considered as having being correctly filed in time so as to go on to consider whether it can be restored under the full terms of section 28 of the Act.

The renewal fees in respect of the eighth year of this patent were not paid by the due date nor during the extended period of six months allowed under section 25(4) upon payment of the prescribed additional fees.

An application for restoration was filed outside the thirteen months prescribed under rule 40(1) of the Patents Rules 2007 for applying for restoration.

The Hearing Officer found that no grounds under which he should consider whether the rule 40(1) period could be extended had been made out by the applicant. Rule 40(1) is a period specifically excluded from being able to be extended (Schedule 4 Part 1 and 2 of the Rules), except in the specific provisions of rule 107 (Correction of irregularities) or rule 111 (Delays in communication services), but as the evidence did not go to either of these provisions, they did not apply in this case.

He therefore concluded that the attempt to file an application for restoration of the patent in suit was not made in time and did not constitute a legitimate application for restoration.

It followed that he gave no further consideration under section 28 as to whether the patent can be restored.

The application for restoration was therefore refused.

Full decision O/395/17 73Kb