Patent decision

BL number

O/206/02

Concerning rights in

GB 9820519.8

Hearing Officer

Mr R C Kennell

Decision date

14 May 2002

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Harry Robinson and Laurence Antony Brooks

Provisions discussed

PA.1977 section 8; PR 1995 rules 100, 110(4)

Keywords

Entitlement, Reinstatement

Related Decisions

None

Summary

The application in the names of unassisted applicants R and B was filed by R in B’s absence abroad, contrary to B’s intention and instructions. R had no understanding of patents and was on his own admission generally oblivious as to the consequences of his actions: he did not tell B what he had done, wrongly thinking that correspondence would be sent to B who would then take all relevant decisions. The application was eventually terminated for failure to request substantive examination on Form 10/77 within the prescribed period. The application had however been published even though the lack of B’s signature on the application form had been overlooked contrary to the Office’s established and published practice. B became aware of the publication through its citation against a later application, and the applicants now sought to reinstate the application.

Discretion under rule 110(4) was not exercised. Although Heatex Group’s Appn [1995] RPC 546 was distinguishable in that no positive decision had been taken to abandon the application, here no clear decisions had been taken at all and in such a case it was proper to look at the applicants’ conduct. The lack of action by R as the only applicant n a position to act was inexcusable.

The irregularity in failing to comply with the period to file Form 10/77 could not be rectified under rule 100(2) since this was not attributable to the above-mentioned error by the Office. Nor could any rectification of that error under rule 100(1) go as far as reviving the application.

No order was made in respect of a reference under section 8(1). This had been made as an alternative to action under rule 110(4) on the basis that B was effectively not an applicant and that appropriate relief would be to allow a new application to be filed under section 8(3). Even though the application was formally defective for want of B’s signature, B was still an applicant; in any case it was illogical for him to claim he had no rights in the original application but would have rights in a successor application.