BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[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 >> Ashraf Mahfouz Abbas (Patent) [2006] UKIntelP o27706 (29 September 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o27706.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o27706 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o27706
Summary
The patentee failed to pay the eighth year renewal fee within the prescribed period for patent GB2317657 and also failed to apply for restoration within the period prescribed by rule 41(1). The Office informed him that the only way his application for restoration could be considered was if there were grounds for invoking rule 100. The patentee argued that he had not received either the Office reminder concerning payment of the renewal fee or the notice of cessation of the patent. His first arguments were that the letters must either have never been sent by the Patent Office or that they had been lost in the post. The hearing officer rejected the first of these arguments on the basis that Patent Office records indicated the letters were correctly generated and addressed and that it would be very unlikely for neither to have been sent. The hearing officer then said that rule 100 cannot be used in the case of an error, default or omission on the part of the postal service but only on the part of the Patent Office. The patentee then argued that the letters should have been sent by recorded delivery but the hearing officer found that there was no error, default or omission on the part of the Office in not sending the letters by recorded delivery. The hearing officer therefore declined to exercise discretion under rule 100 to alter the periods for payment of the renewal fee or for applying for restoration.
