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 >> TEC Armech Limited et al (Patent) [2007] UKIntelP o20807 (26 July 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o20807.html Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o20807 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o20807
Summary
The applicant filed three PCT applications on 15 December 2006 at the UK Office acting as receiving Office under the PCT. On 11 January 2007 the Office received fee sheets in relation to the applications but there were at that time insufficient funds in the agent’s deposit account to pay the fees. A cheque topping up the account was received on 12 January 2007 but no fee sheets or other instructions indicating that the cheque should be used to pay the outstanding PCT fees were included with the cheque. The one month deadline for paying the fees subsequently expired and the Office indicated that late payment fees were therefore now due. Mr. Brooks paid the fees together with the late payment fees but requested that the late payment fees be refunded as the Office had both a request to take the fees (the 11 January fee sheets) and the money itself (the 12 January cheque) by the 15 January deadline for paying the fees. The Office disagreed, arguing that the fax sent on 11 January 2007 indicated that there were insufficient funds available and that new fee sheets should be sent with any subsequent top-up. Moreover they argued that they had acted in accordance with their Terms and Conditions for the Operation of Deposit Accounts. The hearing officer held that the Office had acted fairly and in accordance with its Terms and Conditions in this case. The fees had therefore not be paid on time and thus late payment fees were payable. The Office should not therefore refund the late payment fees.
