Patent decision

BL number

O/442/14

Concerning rights in

GB 0901538.9

Hearing Officer

Mr A R Bushell

Decision date

14 October 2014

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Jiri George Frank Krizek and Jan David Krizek

Provisions discussed

PA Act 1977 Section 20(A), Rule 32(1), Rule 107

Keywords

Rectification of irregularities, Reinstatement

Related Decisions

None

Summary

The issue concerns whether the request to reinstate the application 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 applicants failed to place the application in order for grant before the compliance period expired on 30 April 2013, so the application was terminated on 01 May 2013.

The applicant posted their Form 14 to apply for reinstatement on 30 April 2014 but did not submit the accompanying fee until 06 May 2014. An official letter was issued by the Office on 12 June 2014 informing the applicants they had filed their application for reinstatement out of time and because of this it had been refused. The applicants requested to be heard on this matter.

The applicants’ claimed they were informed by someone in the Office that as long as they filed their Form 14 on time they could file the fee sometime after the official deadline and their application would still be deemed to have been filed on time. As they had been provided with incorrect information they alleged that a procedural irregularity had occurred and asked the Hearing Officer to consider deeming the application for reinstatement to be filed in time under rule 107 of the Patents Rules 2007.

The applicants could not remember the name of the person who had provided them with this information nor did they have any written evidence that this was exactly what they were told. In contrast the Hearing Officer was able to point to two separate instances where the Office had provided the applicants with the correct information, clearly stating in writing that the Form 14 and the accompanying fee must be filed at the same time.

As the only hard evidence regarding this application pointed to the fact that the applicants were correctly informed by the Office they needed to file their Form and accompanying fee at the same time the Hearing Officer concluded that no procedural irregularity had occurred.

As no procedural irregularity had occurred the Hearing Officer deemed that the application for reinstatement was not filed within the time allowed by Rule 32(2)(a) and as that is a non extendable period the application must be refused.

As the application was not filed within the permitted time, the HO did not consider whether the failure to comply with Rule 28(2) and Rule 108 was unintentional.