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 >> Mr Timothy Carl Stamnitz (Patent) [2004] UKIntelP o23104 (5 August 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o23104.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o23104 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o23104
Summary
The proprietor of patent, Mr Stamnitz, set up an effective system to ensure renewal fees would be paid. However, the experienced and reliable person he employed to maintain the patent unexpectedly resigned before paying the fee. When he learnt of this Mr Stamnitz took prompt action by setting up a simple alternative diary reminder system. Unfortunately, because he was not familiar with the fact that the end date for paying the fee in the UK was earlier than in most other countries and given the extraordinary pressure he was under at the time, he entered the wrong date in his diary. He was also deprived of the benefit of seeing the subsequent Rule 39(4) official reminder notice and other renewal reminders from his agent because his PO Box was unexpectedly removed and it contents destroyed by his local Postmaster. The Hearing Officer said he did not consider it right to simply dismiss altogether the possibility of allowing restoration if a proprietor made a fatal error and that determining whether reasonable care was taken required an assessment of the relevant circumstances and the nature of the error. He held that because of the unique set of circumstances, which Mr Stamnitz could not have foreseen, he was denied the opportunity to see certain critical correspondence which could have prompted him to take corrective action. The Hearing Office was therefore satisfied that Mr Stamnitz had exercised the degree of care which would have been reasonable under the circumstances relevant to the particular case and allowed restoration.
