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 >> Robert Harvey Rines (Patent) [2009] UKIntelP o22709 (29 July 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2009/o22709.html Cite as: [2009] UKIntelP o22709 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o22709
Summary
The applicant had filed a Form 52 and fee, requesting a 4 month extension to the compliance period. He then also filed an application claiming divisional status. The Office took the view that the compliance period should be extended by 2 months as-of-right, and so that the divisional application was filed out of time. The applicant argued that a 4 month discretionary extension of time to the compliance period could be granted under rule 108, or in the alternative that it should be granted under rule 107 following unclear official correspondence which amounted to a default, omission or other error on the Office’s part. As a further alternative, the applicant contended that an extension to the period for filing the divisional application should be allowed. The Hearing Officer found that rule 108 did not allow for a 4 month extension to the compliance period on the basis of a single Form 52 and fee, and that the period should be extended by 2 months only. He found no basis for exercising discretion to extend the compliance period under rule 107. He also refused to allow the late filing of the divisional application - having not been provided with sufficient grounds on which properly to exercise discretion favourably. The onus was on the applicant to show that the circumstances were exceptional and that he had been properly diligent - and some very brief statements about the applicant’s ill health and the general difficulties caused by it did not discharge that onus.
