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 >> Harry Robinson and Laurence Antony Brooks (Patent) [2002] UKIntelP o20602 (14 May 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o20602.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o20602 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o20602
Summary
The application in the names of unassisted applicants R and B was filed by R in B’s absence abroad, contrary to B’s intention and instructions. R had no understanding of patents and was on his own admission generally oblivious as to the consequences of his actions: he did not tell B what he had done, wrongly thinking that correspondence would be sent to B who would then take all relevant decisions. The application was eventually terminated for failure to request substantive examination on Form 10/77 within the prescribed period. The application had however been published even though the lack of B’s signature on the application form had been overlooked contrary to the Office’s established and published practice. B became aware of the publication through its citation against a later application, and the applicants now sought to reinstate the application.
Discretion under rule 110(4) was not exercised. Although Heatex Group’s Appn [1995] RPC 546 was distinguishable in that no positive decision had been taken to abandon the application, here no clear decisions had been taken at all and in such a case it was proper to look at the applicants’ conduct. The lack of action by R as the only applicant n a position to act was inexcusable.
The irregularity in failing to comply with the period to file Form 10/77 could not be rectified under rule 100(2) since this was not attributable to the above-mentioned error by the Office. Nor could any rectification of that error under rule 100(1) go as far as reviving the application.
No order was made in respect of a reference under section 8(1). This had been made as an alternative to action under rule 110(4) on the basis that B was effectively not an applicant and that appropriate relief would be to allow a new application to be filed under section 8(3). Even though the application was formally defective for want of B’s signature, B was still an applicant; in any case it was illogical for him to claim he had no rights in the original application but would have rights in a successor application.
