Patent decision

BL number

O/272/18

Concerning rights in

GB2494673

Hearing Officer

Mr G J Rose'Meyer

Decision date

3 May 2018

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Jonathan Lee Clarke

Provisions discussed

Section 28(3)

Keywords

Restoration

Related Decisions

None

Summary

This decision concerns whether the patent in suit should be restored under the provisions of Section 28 following a failure to pay a renewal fee.

The renewal fee in respect of the fifth year of patent no. GB2494673 was due on 15 September 2015. It was not paid by that date, nor during the subsequent 6 months allowed for late payment by virtue of section 25(4). The patent therefore ceased with effect from 15 September 2015. An application for restoration of the patent was made on a Patents Form 16 by Jonathan Lee Clarke (“the applicant”) on 24 April 2017, within the time allowed by rule 40 (1) of the Patents Rules 2007 for filing an application for restoration.

After considering the evidence filed in support of the application for restoration, the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) came to the preliminary view that the requirements for restoration had not been met. As a result, the applicant requested an opportunity to be heard.

At the hearing the applicant represented himself and gave a broad picture of the severe business, personal and financial difficulties (including bankruptcy) he had faced before, during and after the relevant period during which his patent could have been renewed. It was clear from the evidence and his submissions that during that period he had concluded that because of all his difficulties, he did not have sufficient funds to pay the renewal fees on his patent.

While the HO was sympathetic towards the circumstances Mr. Clarke found himself in, he found that the failure to pay the renewal fee had been a conscious decision and as such cannot be said to have been “unintentional” as required by Section 28(3) of the Act. The HO refused the application for restoration accordingly.

Full decision O/272/18 86Kb