BAILII [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 >> Sirna Therapeutics Inc (Patent) [2005] UKIntelP o24005 (1 September 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o24005.html
Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o24005

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Sirna Therapeutics Inc [2005] UKIntelP o24005 (1 September 2005)

For the whole decision click here: o24005

Patent decision

BL number
O/240/05
Concerning rights in
Whether a request to make a late declaration of priority under section 5(2B) for patent application number GB 0507019.8 should be allowed
Hearing Officer
Mr B Micklewright
Decision date
1 September 2005
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Sirna Therapeutics Inc
Provisions discussed
None
Keywords
Priority date
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The application GB 0507019.8 was filed on 6 April 2005 and claimed priority from two US applications, the earlier of which was filed on 20 February 2004, outside the twelve-month period for normal priority claims. This filing was accompanied by a request to make a late declaration of priority under section 5(2B) of the Act. The applicant had intended to file at the US Patent Office within the 12-month priority period a PCT application claiming priority from the same earlier applications. This PCT application would have designated the United Kingdom. However the wrong cover sheet was inadvertently filed with the application and therefore the application was effectively filed as a US utility application. The case turned on the meaning of section 5(2C)(b) of the Act, specifically on whether the failure to file the application in suit within the priority period was unintentional. The hearing officer held that to satisfy section 5(2C)(b) the applicant had to have intended to file the very same GB national application with the same application papers, within the twelve-month period. In the present case this had not been satisfied. Rather the applicant intended to file a different application, namely a PCT application, before the end of the twelve month period. The hearing officer also found that no such PCT application was in existence and for this reason also such an application could not be considered as 'the application in suit' for the purposes of section 5 of the Act. Therefore the request was refused.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o24005.html