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 >> Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd; Diamond Electric Mfg. Co., Ltd; Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha (Patent) [2014] UKIntelP o23414 (29 May 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2014/o23414.html Cite as: [2014] UKIntelP o23414 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary
International application PCT/JP2007/051550 was lodged in the UK on 30 June 2008 and allocated application number GB0811884.6 in the names of Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd; and others (the applicants).The application proceeded routinely until 8 June 2010, when the IPO sent the applicants, via their appointed attorneys, the examination report under section 18(3) of the Act. Within that report, the r.30(2)(b) compliance date by which to bring the case in to order for grant was stipulated as 8 June 2011. The attorneys replied to that report on 8 December 2011with detailed submissions. The next action was an official letter issued to the attorneys on 5 October 2011 saying that as the application had not been put in order for grant on 8 June 2011, it had been treated as having been refused.
Nothing further is recorded on the official file until 29 October 2013 when the attorneys wrote to the IPO saying that on reviewing the status of the application they had noted an examination report dated 8 February 2011was issued, but which they had never received by post. The attorneys also stated that they had noted that the case had been listed as terminated before grant, but that they had been given no notice of this event or given the opportunity to correct any deficiencies. The attorneys asked for the examination report to be reissued with a fresh extended deadline.
The office replied saying that this was not possible as the application was terminated and it was now too late to file an application for reinstatement under s.20A of the Act. The office referred the attorneys to r.107 (Correction of irregularities) and r.111 (Delays in communication services), as possible avenues to extend the missed time limit.
The matter came to a hearing at which the attorneys argued that either r.107 or r.111 ought to allow the extension of the compliance period because two letters sent by the office had never been received in their offices. This was due irregularities within the IPO or due wholly or mainly to a failure in a communication service, namely the postal service.
The HO found that there was no evidence of any irregularity within the IPO and so the r.107 ground did not succeed. He also found that although a postal failure may have been a contributory factor in the failure to bring this application in order for grant in time, it was not the whole or the main reason. He found the main reason to be the lack of systematic rigour in the attorneys’ offices to track the case correctly at the right times, despite public indications as to the correct status of the case. As such the r.111 ground also did not succeed.
