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 >> Trimtec Limited (Patent) [2006] UKIntelP o06506 (10 March 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o06506.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o6506, [2006] UKIntelP o06506 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o06506
Summary
The full window in which the 8th renewal of the patent could have been effected was from 8 June 2002 to 8 March 2003. At this time the patent was owned by "Trimtec 1", a firm unrelated to the applicants for restoration, "Trimtec 2". The parent group of companies for Trimtec 1 was in administrative receivership in June 2002 and consequently the renewal reminders correctly issued by their agents ended up with the receivers. The receivers were in negotiations to assign the patent to Lawncloud Limited (subsequently to become Trimtec 2) via Lawncloud’s solicitors, OTB. However, the receivers failed to pass on any renewal status information or reminders to OTB or to Lawncloud themselves. OTB had however inquired as to this information to patent agents W & R in November 2002, when they had approached them regarding the potential recordal of assignment of the patent. W & R had informed OTB that the renewal fees were overdue, but OTB did not act on that information or pass it on to Lawncloud.
When in February 2003 OTB approached W & R again to record the assignment at the Patent Office, neither they nor W & R remembered or inquired about the status of the patent at that point. The discovery that the patent had lapsed was made too late to effect renewal on time. It transpired in evidence that OTB, had never notified Lawncloud of the fact the patent had not been renewed.
The Hearing Officer decided that Lawncloud had taken reasonable care to ensure renewal of the patent by appointing professional representatives, but the representatives had failed to provide them with the key information which would have enabled timely renewal. The application for restoration was consequently allowed.
