 |
[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 >> Michael Torr Todman (Patent) [2014] UKIntelP o36514 (14 August 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2014/o36514.html Cite as: [2014] UKIntelP o36514 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary
Application number GB0623079.1 was filed on 20 November 2006 in the name of Michael Torr Todman. On 22 November 2010, the IPO sent the examination report under s.18(3) of the Act to Mr Todman. Within that report, the r.30(2)(b) compliance date by which to bring the case in to order for grant was stipulated as 22 November 2011. Mr Todman replied to that report on 24 March 2011. The next official action was a letter issued on 1 August 2011 followed by an official letter issued on 16 November 2011, the latter explained that as the application had not been put in order for grant on 22 November 2011, it had been treated as having been refused.
Mr Todman rang the office on 6 December 2012 and explained that he did not receive the official letters of 1 August 2011 and 16 November 2011, but it was explained to him that it was now too late to apply for reinstatement under Section 20(A). Mr Todman wrote to the office saying that he can only conclude that some error occurred in the IPO and requested reinstatement of the application. When this was initially refused, Mr Todman requested to be heard in the matter.
As Mr Todman could not point to a specific failure within the office, the HO found that there was no evidence of any irregularity within the IPO under the terms of r.107. However on the evidence, he found that on the balance of probabilities Mr Todman did not receive the official letters of 1 August 2011 and 16 November 2011 and as such the failure to file a response to the official letter of 1 August 2011 was wholly attributable to a failure in the communication service and the failure to put the application in order for grant by the compliance date was in the very least mainly attributable to a failure in the communication service. Therefore the request for reinstatement succeeded under the provisions of rule 111.