Patent decision

BL number

O/083/07

Concerning rights in

GB 0102280.5

Hearing Officer

Mr B Micklewright

Decision date

22 March 2007

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Tannoy Limited

Provisions discussed

PA Act 1977 Section 20A

Keywords

Reinstatement

Related Decisions

None

Summary

Reinstatement was sought after the application had been treated as refused for failure to reply to an examination report. The application had been assigned from Goodmans to Tannoy by the CEO of Tannoy prior to the deadline for responding to the examination report but he had unintentionally and inadvertently omitted to tell the staff of either company of the assignment. Goodmans entered into administration and decided not to pursue the application, the person taking this decision not being aware that Goodmans no longer owned the application. The Technical Director of Tannoy decided not to take on the application but this decision was taken without the knowledge that Tannoy already owned the application. The application was subsequently treated as refused under section 20(1) for failure to comply with the requirements of the Act and rules before the expiry of the rule 34 period. The hearing officer found that the intentions of the CEO of Tannoy rather than the Technical Director best reflected the intentions of the applicant in this case. He also found that had the Technical Director been aware of the assignment he would have processed the application through to grant. He found that the unintentional failure of the CEO to inform his staff of the assignment led directly to the failure of Tannoy to reply directly to the examination report which in turn led directly to the refusal of the application under section 20(1). The request for reinstatement was therefore allowed.