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 >> Burnstein Technologies, Inc and Nagaoka Co. Ltd (Patent) [2006] UKIntelP o09206 (31 March 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o09206.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o09206, [2006] UKIntelP o9206 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o09206
Summary
The full window in which the 6 renewal of the patent could have been effected was from 27 November 2002 to 27 August 2003. Burnstein Technologies, Inc (BTI) was the sole proprietor at this stage. BTI is a research & development company and as such, had no product sales. BTI was dependent on investment funds in order to finance its daily operations. In 2002 and 2003 BTI found itself in serious financial difficulties. BTI became so short of funds towards the end of 2002 that it became unable to operate on a day-to-day basis. This included the financial inability to maintain its patent portfolio, which at the time included some 200 or so cases, including the patent in suit. BTI took its responsibilities towards its patents very seriously and employed an attorney and paralegal to look after them. However, by April 2003 the attorney and paralegal, along with the majority of BTI staff were furloughed. By October 2003, everyone in the company, apart from Mr. Burstein the CEO, had been laid off. The patent records were not maintained in this period. Mr. Burnstein spent all his time strenuously trying to secure financial backing for BTI in order to save the company. He had not checked on the due dates of any of the patents in the portfolio in the relevant period, because he was so busy and because the attorney had been laid off. The hearing officer found that reasonable care had not been demonstrated because Mr. Burnstein was not aware of the renewal dates of the patent in suit (or of any specific patents in the portfolio) therefore had in effect left its renewal to chance, dependent on when his funding efforts might be successful, and he had no way of knowing when this might be. The application for restoration consequently failed.
