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 >> Philip Jones et al (Patent) [2009] UKIntelP o02209 (23 January 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2009/o02209.html Cite as: [2009] UKIntelP o02209, [2009] UKIntelP o2209 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o02209
Summary
The applicants had filed a PCT application just less than 14 months after the filing date of an earlier application. They requested restoration of the right of priority under PCT rule 26bis.3, on the basis that the failure to file the PCT application within the priority period was unintentional. Reasons for the delay including problems that Mr Jones encountered with the PCT filing software, and his mistaken assumption that the software would inform him of important matters such as impending deadlines. He was therefore unaware of the 12 month priority period. On the evidence provided, the hearing officer found that Mr Jones had been acting intentionally in filing the PCT application when he did - albeit that he was acting on the basis of a misunderstanding of the PCT system. Although the hearing officer accepted that Mr Jones may have acted differently if he had been aware of the deadline, he found that speculating about what Mr Jones might have done, or might have intended to do, in different circumstances was not relevant. The request was refused.
