Patent decision

BL number

O/357/06

Concerning rights in

EP0353376

Hearing Officer

Mr S Probert

Decision date

8 December 2006

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Lambda Research Inc & Ecoroll AG Werkzeugtechnik

Provisions discussed

Section 72(1), Section 75

Keywords

Amendment, Revocation

Related Decisions

None

Summary

This was a revocation action that became complicated by a misunderstanding as to whether or not the applicant for revocation had withdrawn from the proceedings. The patentee thought they had; the applicant thought they hadn’t; and the Patent Office didn’t seem to know what to think. The Hearing Officer decided that whatever either party may have thought, the applicant had only withdrawn conditionally, and he went on to find that the condition could not be met.

The condition on which the applicant would have withdrawn concerned a request to amend the patent. If the patentee had been able to amend the patent as proposed, the applicant would have withdrawn.

But in the circumstances, the Hearing Officer considered that there had been a delay of roughly fourteen years between the patentee being made aware of relevant prior art and the request to amend. He considered that this was "unreasonable delay" and that the patentee had not shown reasonable grounds for the delay.

Having been refused discretion to amend the patent, the patentee chose not to defend the unamended patent, which was then revoked.

Full decision O/357/06 35Kb