Patent decision

BL number

O/245/04

Concerning rights in

GB2335188

Hearing Officer

Mr M C Wright

Decision date

12 August 2004

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Mr Philip Alderson

Provisions discussed

Patents Act 1977, Section 28(3)

Keywords

Restoration

Related Decisions

None

Summary

Although, in accordance with section 28(2), Mr Alderson was permitted to apply for restoration, the proprietor of the patent at the time the renewal fee could have been paid was Ureka Ltd. Therefore the Hearing Officer said he had to be satisfied that Ureka had taken reasonable care to see that the renewal fee was paid. The person in Ureka, who was responsible for maintaining the patent was one of Mr Alderson’s fellow directors, Mr Beckwith. Mr Alderson, who said he did not know what renewal reminder system Ureka used, was unable to obtain any statement from Mr Beckwith. Consequently, the Hearing Officer had no evidence that Mr Beckwith had set up any kind of reminder system for paying the renewal fee or relied on the rule 39(4) official renewal reminder notice. Nor did he have any information as to why the system failed in respect to the fifth year renewal fee. Moreover, Mr Alderson could provide no evidence that he had notified the Office of a change of address for service to which the rule 39(4) should have been sent and the Office had not record of receiving such a notification. The Hearing Officer did not consider that Mr Alderson’s “assumption”, that he would have sent a similar notification of his address change to the UK Patent Office as he had done to the European Patent Office, constituted evidence that he had in fact sent such a notification. The Hearing Officer was not therefore satisfied that reasonable care had been demonstrated and refused to allow restoration.