Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Matwell Services Limited (Patent) [2011] UKIntelP o09111 (2 March 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2011/o09111.html
Cite as: [2011] UKIntelP o9111, [2011] UKIntelP o09111
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Matwell Services Limited [2011] UKIntelP o09111 (2 March 2011)
For the whole decision click here: o09111
Patent decision
- BL number
- O/091/11
- Concerning rights in
- GB0819802.0
- Hearing Officer
- Mrs C A Farrington
- Decision date
- 2 March 2011
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Matwell Services Limited
- Provisions discussed
- Patents Act 1977 Section 20A, Rule 32(1) (2)
- Keywords
- Reinstatement
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
The issue concerns whether the request for reinstatement was filed within the time allowed by rule 32(1) and if so, should it then be reinstated under the provisions of section 20A.
The application was filed on 29th October 2008 and the application fee was paid. The search request and fee were due by 29th October 2009. No further communication was received and the application was therefore terminated with effect from 30th October 2009 for failure to comply with rule 22(2). On 10th September 2010 the applicant requested reinstatement.
The applicant used the services of a Patent Attorney to file the application and having failed to achieve a satisfactory outcome from her enquiries with him about the progress of the application she contacted the IPO directly on 1st April 2010. She was informed that the application had lapsed and why. In subsequent telephone calls to the IPO on 21st April and 10th May 2010 the applicant was advised of the procedure and time limits for applying for reinstatement. She did not contact the office again until 20th August 2010 and the Form 14 requesting reinstatement was filed on 10th September 2010.
The applicant’s case centred on the original failure by the Patent Attorney to act on her instruction to make the request for search and the difficult financial situation the applicant’s company was in which led to the failure to make the reinstatement request earlier. The HO found that the date on which the cause of non compliance was removed was no later than 21st April 2010 when the applicant knew what needed to be done and by when. The request for reinstatement was not filed within two months of that date as required by rule 32(2)(a) and as that is a non extendable period the application must be refused. As the request was not filed within the time limit the HO did not consider whether the failure to comply with rule 22(2) was unintentional.