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 £5, 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 >> Bruker SA (Patent) [2006] UKIntelP o20406 (21 July 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o20406.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o20406 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o20406
Summary
In early January 2002, Bruker SA assigned the patent in suit to Hightechcare SA. The patent was to be paid for in instalments ending on 31st December 2003, so Bruker insisted on keeping the files until that date. The assignment contained no arrangements as to who should renew the patent in the period until the payments were completed. This led to confusion, as Bruker assumed Hightechcare would see to renewal and vice versa. Hightechcare was a small business effectively run at the time by Monsieur Phelip, a former employee of Bruker, who was aware of the fact that Bruker had a well established and well run Patent Department. For the 10th year renewal at issue, the official UK Patent Office reminder letter (PREN 5 EP) was sent by their French Patent Attorneys to Bruker. Normally these would be forwarded to the Patent Dept. for renewal, but on this occasion they were intercepted by M. Bazille, CEO at Bruker. He was aware of the assignment to Hightechcare and forwarded the PREN 5 EP to M. Phelip with no further explanation, believing Hightechcare would pay the renewal fees. M. Phelip could not read English, but believing Bruker was to pay the fees, assumed this was merely confirmation of the renewal. The Hearing Officer (HO) accepted that although it was Hightechcare’s responsibility to find out the true position regarding renewals, they were also entitled to rely of the PREN 5 EP reminders being only a small business. If Bruker had not circumvented their normal internal arrangements by intercepting the reminders, M. Phelip would have been notified of the need to renew by the Bruker Patent Dept. and would have paid the fees. He had been deprived of the opportunity to correct his mistaken assumption that Bruker would pay. The HO also found that the 8th year renewal on a co-assigned patent (EP0697600) had been paid by Bruker in the period they had retained the files after the assignment, perhaps adding to Hightechcare’s assumption that they would pay this renewal too. The restoration was allowed.
