Patent decision

BL number
Concerning rights in
EP (UK)1409166
Hearing Officer
Mr G J Rose'Meyer
Decision date
1 June 2015
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Strumat Limited
Provisions discussed
Section 28(2) and 28(3)
Related Decisions


The applicants for restoration (SL) were found not to be the proprietors of the patent at the date of application for restoration as required by s.28(2). As such they filed a Vesting Order (VO) placing the patent in their ownership. This allowed the restoration proceedings to progress. During the process, the IPO offered the view that the VO only placed the patent in the ownership of SL after the relevant date in which the renewal fees could have been paid and as such their intentions to renew or not as required under s.28(3) were irrelevant. The proprietors of the patent during the relevant period were in fact the Crown after the dissolution of the previous owners (GG). The crown had indicated they would not have renewed the patent in the relevant period, so the IPO offered a preliminary view that the application for restoration should fail.

The matter came to a hearing where SL argued GG fraudulently acquired the patent and that SL were always the rightful owners and the VO proved this. They contended the IPO was wrong in its view that the VO only placed the ownership of the patent in SL’s hands after the relevant date for paying the renewal fees. The HO allowed SL further time to provide evidence that they were the rightful owners of the patent during the relevant period. In the event SL were unable to provide further evidence and the HO found that the VO only places ownership of the patent in SL’s name from after the relevant date and therefore their intentions on renewing the patent were not relevant.

As such the HO found that the failure to pay the renewal fee cannot be said to have been unintentional and he refused the application for restoration

Full decision O/248/15 PDF document251Kb