Patent decision
- BL number
- O/344/20
- Concerning rights in
- GB 2570857A
- Hearing Officer
- Mr S Probert
- Decision date
- 7 August 2020
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Wootzano Ltd v Zakareya Hussein
- Provisions discussed
- Sect 117, Rule 105, Rule 49
- Keywords
- Correction, Entitlement, Inventorship
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
Ten months after the patent application was filed, a request was made to ‘correct’ the application form (Patents Form 1) so as to add a second applicant/inventor. The attorney who originally filed the patent application said that it was an error on his part to have not included the name of a second applicant/inventor at the time of filing. The correction was opposed by the registered owner of the patent application, assisted by his new attorney.
The hearing officer found that rule 49 (and not rule 105) applied in this case, and that the correction could not be made under rule 49 because of remaining doubt as to whether it should be made. The main source of doubt was the opposition by the owner of the patent application.
In view of the apparent dispute between the parties over such issues as entitlement and inventorship, the hearing officer also found that even if his decision was wrong in relation to rule 49, there were more specific provisions (sections 8 & 13) that would be derogated if the correction was allowed under the general provision of section 117.
The correction was refused, and the opponent was awarded a contribution towards its costs.
Full decision O/344/20 333Kb