Patent decision

BL number

O/458/00

Concerning rights in

EP0426753

Hearing Officer

Mr R Walker

Decision date

7 December 2000

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Matelect Ltd

Provisions discussed

PA 1977 section 28

Keywords

Restoration

Related Decisions

None

Summary

The proprietor (Matelect) was the original applicant for the EP patent, but had assigned the rights to another company during the application process. Some time after grant, the rights were re-assigned to Matelect and the patent agent who dealt with the re-assignment promised to send them a reminder regarding the next renewal fee payment. The agent did not do so explicitly, but nevertheless wrote to Matelect issuing a general reminder that renewal fees are payable annually. The agent also asked if he should inform the Office of a change in the address for service. On receiving no reply, the agent wrote another three times to Matelect asking whether renewal fees should be paid and if he was to be the address for service. Although Matelect replied concerning other matters in these letters, no instructions were received regarding address for service or renewal fees.

The Office's standard warning letter about overdue renewal fees was therefore not received by Matelect or their agents. Despite the letters from their agent asking for instructions, Matelect had assumed that they would in any case receive the promised reminder from their agent. This was held not to be taking reasonable care in giving instructions and making arrangements for renewing the patent and so the patent was not restored.