Patent decision

BL number

O/144/09

Concerning rights in

GB 2341616

Hearing Officer

Mrs S Williams

Decision date

22 May 2009

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

James Philip Porter

Provisions discussed

PA Act 1977 Section 28

Keywords

Restoration

Related Decisions

None

Summary

The renewal fee in respect of the fifth year of the patent fell due on 30 November 2006, the last day of the month in which the filing date fell. The renewal fee was not paid by that date or during the six months allowed under section 25(4) with payment of the additional prescribed fees. Consequently the patent ceased. Mr Porter filed an application for restoration of the patent on 30 June 2008, within the 13 months prescribed under rule 40(1) for applying for restoration.

Mr Porter argued that his failure to pay the renewal fee on time was unintentional. At the time the renewal fee became due, he had the funds available to pay and had meant to pay but unfortunately the filing system he had developed involving the use of a cork board had let him down and had led him to make an incorrect assumption that he had already paid the outstanding fee. At the hearing, referring to the increasing financial pressures he found himself under, Mr Porter argued that faced with the worry of how he was going to meet his numerous financial obligations, he became increasingly stressed and increasingly distracted, so much so that he subsequently forgot about the patent.

The written evidence provided prior to the hearing suggested that Mr Porter’s failure to pay the renewal fee was a direct result of not having the funds available to do so.

The Hearing Officer found that the evidence relating to Mr Porter’s financial position somewhat contradictory. However in view of bank statements submitted in evidence after the hearing, the Hearing Officer concluded that Mr Porter had the funds available to pay the renewal fee during the relevant period. She also accepted that as Mr Porter’s business circumstances became more demanding and pressurized, he became increasingly stressed so much so that he became confused about the renewal status of the patent. She did not find this unreasonable given the difficult business and financial pressures Mr Porter was under during this period. She also considered it entirely plausible that on not finding any paper work relating to his patent on his cork board, he had considered that he must have followed his usual practice for paying bills and had removed the paper work from the board and paid the outstanding fee.

Although the written and oral evidence provided by Mr Porter had in places been inconsistent, the Hearing Officer concluded that on the balance of probabilities, Mr Porter’s failure to pay the renewal fee did not result from insufficient funding but rather was a result of the limitations of his cork board filing system. Being satisfied that the failure to pay the renewal fee was unintentional, the application for restoration was consequently allowed.