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 >> Research In Motion Ltd (Patent) [2008] UKIntelP o01608 (22 January 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o01608.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o01608, [2008] UKIntelP o1608 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o01608
Summary
The international application was filed with all national states designated, but due to a clerical error the EP regional phase was not designated. Unaware of this, the applicant pursued an EP regional application and did not take steps to enter the UK national phase at the relevant time. When the EPO noticed that the EP regional phase had not been designated, the EP regional application was deemed void. The applicant therefore applied to reinstate the international application for a patent (UK), which had been taken to be withdrawn for failure to enter the UK national phase.
The applicant argued that there had been no intention either to pursue or not pursue the application in the UK national phase. It had simply not been considered, because the EP regional route was pursued. Thus, they argued, reinstatement should be allowed because there had been no positive intention not to comply with the requirements for national phase entry. The applicant also argued that, had they been aware of the clerical error at the relevant time, they would have chosen to enter the UK national phase instead. The hearing officer found that the applicant had in fact made a decision to pursue the EP regional route and not the UK national route, and had therefore intentionally failed to comply with the UK national phase requirements. The failure to comply was not unintentional, and so reinstatement was not available. Furthermore, whether or not the applicant would have had different intentions, had the error been identified earlier, was not the matter to be decided, and so was not relevant to the decision which had to be made.
