Patent decision
- BL number
- O/540/18
- Concerning rights in
- GB2518906
- Hearing Officer
- Mr G J Rose'Meyer
- Decision date
- 29 August 2018
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Ms Aisha Kasim
- Provisions discussed
- Rule 111; rule 107
- Keywords
- Third party terms
- Related Decisions
- O/408/10, O/365/14
Summary
Summary: This decision concerns whether a request to extend the period for requesting substantive examination on patent application no. GB2518906 can be allowed under the terms of rule 107 or rule111.
Following routine processing of the application, a Search Report was issued to the applicant to her then address in Dundee. That report, amongst other things, explained the subsequent processes of Publication, including an estimation of the date this will occur, and Substantive Examination including the fee and time period for requesting it.
In November 2014 the applicant notified the office of a change of address to London, and this was duly recorded. On 9 March 2015, the IPO issued the Notice of Publication to the applicant’s London address, stating the publication date and details about requesting substantive examination, including the form, fee and deadline. No request for substantive examination or any further communications on this application occurred before the deadline and the application was duly terminated.
On 2 May 2018 the applicant requested reinstatement of the application, but did not file the official form and fee. The office wrote to the applicant saying that the deadline for filing a reinstatement had passed and this was a non-extendable period. There followed some administrative confusion within the office and the application was eventually considered and refused on the grounds of whether the period for requesting substantive examination could be extended under the terms of rules 107 (Correction of irregularities) and 111 (Failure of a communication service). The matter came to a hearing on those grounds.
After hearing further submissions and considering the evidence filed, the Hearing Officer found against the applicant under r.107 but in her favour under r.111. However, before un-terminating the application and ordering the period for filing the request for substantive examination to be extended, the HO imposed third part terms as a condition of these actions and allowed the applicant a month in which to agree to them or file comments in writing to the office.
Full decision O/540/18 
96Kb
