Patent decision

BL number

O/454/13

Concerning rights in

GB2390104

Hearing Officer

Mr G J Rose'Meyer

Decision date

11 November 2013

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Richard Perry

Provisions discussed

Section 28

Keywords

Restoration

Related Decisions

None

Summary

Patent number GB2390104 was filed on 8 August 2003 and granted with effect from 12 May 2004. The 9th year renewal fee fell due on 8 August 2011, but the renewal fee was not paid by that date or during the six months allowed under s.25 (4) upon payment of the prescribed additional fees. The patent therefore ceased 08 August 2011.

In his initial evidence filed with the application for restoration, the applicant unequivocally stated that he “could not afford to renew it at the time…”. Based on this, the Office notified the applicant that it was minded to refuse the application, but invited him to file any further evidence. Further evidence was filed, but it did not convince the Office to restore the patent and the matter went to a hearing. At the hearing the applicant argued that although he had initially said he had no money to renew the patent during the relevant period, this was based on confusion as to exactly when the fees were due and what amount he had to pay. He also argued that he had received erroneous advice from the Office in that he was told it would be cheaper to let the patent cease and apply for restoration instead of paying the renewal fees and fines. He stated at the hearing that he did in fact have sufficient funds to renew the patent during the relevant period, but the confusion caused by his various business and IP dealings and the erroneous advice he had allegedly received, caused him to unintentionally miss the payment.

The HO officer allowed the applicant time after the hearing file further evidence of his ability to pay the relevant renewal fees and fines. This was provided and on balance the HO accepted the evidence and the applicant’s submissions. On that basis, he found that the evidence provided in this case was sufficient satisfy the Comptroller that the 'unintentional' test of s.28(3) had been met. As such he ordered that the patent be restored.