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 >> Matsushita Electric Industrial Company Limited (Patent) [2008] UKIntelP o02908 (1 February 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o02908.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o02908, [2008] UKIntelP o2908 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o02908
Summary
These patents were the first applications for restoration to proceed to a hearing since the criteria for allowing such applications changed. Section 28 of the Patents Act 1977 was amended by the Regulatory Reform (Patents) Order 2004 as from 1 January 2005. The amendment essentially means that a proprietor of a patent will now have to satisfy the comptroller that the failure to pay the renewal fee on time was “unintentional” instead of having to satisfy him that “reasonable care” had been exercised to see that the renewal fee was paid on time.
The applicant’s central argument in these cases was that the evidence supplied was clearly sufficient to fulfill the new requirements of s.28 (3). The applicant had essentially filed a witness statement stating that the failure to pay the fees on time had been “unintentional”. No other evidence was lodged. This, the applicant argued, adequately met the statutory requirement of s.28 (3) because there was a clear, unequivocal statement of the requirement of the law and filed in evidential format as prescribed by the rules. It followed, in the applicant’s submission, that this must satisfy the comptroller. The Hearing Officer disagreed.
The Hearing Officer decided that this approach in effect takes away the decision making role which he had earlier found s.28 (3) places upon the comptroller. It substitutes the applicant’s subjective assertion of compliance with the law, for what should be a statement of facts or surrounding circumstances which would enable the comptroller himself to arrive at a reasoned, objective determination. The determination of whether the comptroller is satisfied must be based on the facts of each case. The facts should come from the evidence which the applicant chooses to file. That evidence should be sufficient to enable the comptroller to come to the determination himself. In this case the evidence supplied had been insufficient to establish the facts so as to satisfy the comptroller that the failure to pay the renewal fee on time or within the grace period was unintentional. The application for restoration was therefore refused.
