Patent decision

BL number

O/591/15

Concerning rights in

EP (UK) 1395152

Hearing Officer

Mr G J Rose'Meyer

Decision date

15 December 2015

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

RTC Industries, Inc.

Provisions discussed

Rule 40(1); Section 28

Keywords

Restoration

Related Decisions

O/305/08, O/166/09

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 terms of section 28 of the Act.

The renewal fees in respect of the eighth year of this patent fell due on 17 May 2009. The renewal fees were not paid by that 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 on 26 May 2015, nearly four and a half years outside the thirteen months prescribed under rule 40(1) of the Patents Rules 2007 for applying for restoration. The date by which the application should have been filed was 31 December 2010.

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), but as rule 107 had not been argued, he could not consider this.

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/591/15 82Kb