Patent decision

BL number

O/087/09

Concerning rights in

GB 0808277.8

Hearing Officer

Mr G J Rose'Meyer

Decision date

27 March 2009

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Derek Norman Green

Provisions discussed

PA 1977, Section 20A, Section 89A(3) and Rule 66(1)(b)

Keywords

Reinstatement

Related Decisions

[2006] UKIntelP o37406, 1995 RPC 546

Summary

The application was filed on 7 May 2008 in the name of Derrick Norman Green. The application was filed under Section 89A (3) of the Act 1977, requesting entry to the UK National Phase for international application PCT/GB2006/001054. The period prescribed by Rule 66(1) (b) for entry into the National Phase is 31 months from the earliest declared priority date. The international application had an international filing date of 22 March 2006 and an earliest priority date of 22 March 2005. The prescribed period for entry to the National Phase therefore expired on 22 October 2007. A Form 52 requesting an extension to the prescribed time limit and evidence in the form of a sworn statement were filed with the application. As the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 66(1) (b) and the extension of time had not been filed in the time prescribed by Rule 108, the application was treated as withdrawn. The applicant was informed that reinstatement was the only option available if he wished to proceed. A Form 14 was duly filed by the applicant requesting reinstatement under s.20A and r.32.

The essential determination to be made under s.20A is that the Comptroller shall reinstate the application if he is “satisfied that the failure to comply [with s. 89A(3) in this case] …was unintentional”. The applicant’s case for reinstatement is based on the argument that as a result of severe financial difficulties he was prevented from pursuing entry into the UK National Phase. The applicant contended that he fully intended to enter the National Phase but was prevented from doing so because of his financial circumstances. Evidence was provided showing the applicant’s financial position and his attempts to secure finances to be able to enter the application into the UK National Phase. The HO found that despite his underlying intention to enter the application into the UK National Phase and despite his on-going attempts and a last ditch attempt to secure finances to do this, the applicant’s final decision not to comply with the deadline set under Section 89A(3) and Rule 66)1)(b) was a conscious one based on his knowledge of his impecunious state. As such the failure to comply cannot have been unintentional. The request to reinstate the application was therefore refused.