Patent decision

BL number

O/104/11

Concerning rights in

GB0807755.4

Hearing Officer

Mr SW Bender

Decision date

15 March 2011

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Mr Manjinder S Virdee

Provisions discussed

PA Act 1977 Section 20(A), Rule 32(1)

Keywords

Reinstatement

Related Decisions

None

Summary

The issue concerns whether the request to reinstate the application was filed within the time allowed by Rule 32(1) and if so should it then be reinstated under the provisions of Section 20A.

The request for substantive examination was due by 4 May 2010. However it was not filed until the following day. The Office wrote to the applicant explaining that the period could be extended via a patents form 52, if that form was filed by 4 July 2010. However the form 52 was never filed. On 6 July 2010 the applicant telephoned the Office and was informed that the application had been terminated but it may still be possible to continue with the application upon filing the patents form 14 and fee. An Official letter also issued on 6 July 2010. The letter explained that the request must be made within two months of the applicant becoming able to comply with the outstanding requirement (the filing of the form 52). The request for reinstatement was filed on 14 September 2010; an Official letter issued on 15 October 2010 stating that the request was filed outside the two month period allowed and therefore could not be allowed.

The applicant’s case for reinstatement centred on his ill health and that he overlooked the need to file the relevant forms by their due dates because of his hospital appointments. The HO found that the application for reinstatement was not filed within the time allowed by Rule 32(2)(a) and as that is a non extendable period the application must be refused.

As the application was not filed within the permitted time, the HO did not consider whether the failure to comply with Rule 28(2) and Rule 108 was unintentional

Full decision O/104/11 47Kb