Category: Intellectual Property

British Polythene Ltd (Patent): IPO 14 Aug 2009

IPO The request for an opinion was refused under section 74A(3)(b) as the hearing officer did not think it appropriate to issue an opinion on a request that merely covered a question that had already been sufficiently considered pre-grant.

Citations:

[2009] UKIntelP o24209

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.457433

Colin R Hart, Paul J Joynt, Stork Townsend Inc Brent M Veldkamp, Jarrod A Grim and Robert T Seaberg (Patent): IPO 18 Aug 2009

IPO Colin R Hart and Paul J Joynt both filed uncontested applications under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007 to the effect that they should also have been named as joint inventors in the granted patent. The applications were consolidated. The comptroller found that Colin R Hart and Paul J Joynt should be mentioned as joint inventors along with Brent M Veldkamp, Jarrod A Grim and Robert T Seaberg in the granted EP (UK) patent and directed, in accordance with rule 10(1), that an addendum slip mentioning them as joint inventors be prepared for the granted patent for the invention.

Citations:

[2009] UKIntelP o24309

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.457435

John Terence Crilly, New Age Radiators Limited and Ray Fisher Construction Limited (Patent): IPO 11 Aug 2009

IPO The claimant, John Terence Crilly, filed proceedings under section 8 seeking an order, amongst other things, that patent application number GB 0812748.2 in the name of new Age Radiators Limited and patent application number GB 0816067.3 in the name of Ray Fisher Construction Limited, proceed in his name in preference to the current patent applicants. In the absence of a counter-statement from the patent applicants and those considered likely to have an interest in the matter, the hearing officer considered the proceedings unopposed in accordance with rule 77(9). As such, the hearing officer accepted the facts of the case as set out in the claimant’s statement of grounds and found that John Terence Crilly was entitled to be named as the sole patent applicant in respect of the patent applications. He therefore ordered that the applications should proceed in the name of John Terence Crilly as sole patent applicant.

Citations:

[2009] UKIntelP o23909

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.457436

Power Stow A/S and Rasn A/S (Patent): IPO 7 Jul 2009

IPO The defendant in an action for a declaration of non infringement requested that the action be struck out for want of prosecution as the claimant had not provided any credible reason why it had not filed its evidence within the agreed timetable nor had it explained how it intended to take the case forward. The hearing officer accepted the defendant’s arguments and struck out the case.

Citations:

[2009] UKIntelP o18909

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.457424

Websense UK Limited (Patent): IPO 1 May 2009

The application relates to a system for controlling or monitoring internet access by categorizing URLs and the structure of a cache memory to achieve this.
The Hearing Officer applied the Aerotel/Macrossan test and decided that the contribution made by the invention fell solely within excluded matter. He also considered the Court of Appeal decision in Symbian and the decision in ATandT and Cvon and concluded that the contribution did not have a relevant technical effect. The application was refused as being some combination of a mathematical method and a program for a computer as such.

Citations:

[2009] UKIntelP o11409

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.457363

Pro Challenge Limited (Patent): IPO 2 Apr 2009

IPO The applicants filed restoration applications on four patents, but it later transpired that a fifth had been omitted in error from the application form. The applicants requested that the fifth patent be included in the original application for restoration ‘in accordance with s.117’. The HO had to decide this issue first. If he found in favour of that request, he would then include the fifth patent in his considerations under s.28(3) for the other four patents. If not, only those four need be considered under s.28(3).
The HO found that s.117 did not allow the fifth patent to be entered into the proceedings for consideration under s. 28(3). He concluded that if he were to find otherwise, he would in effect (because of the facts of this case) extend a period for filing restorations which by specific provision of the law cannot be extended, i.e. rule 41(1), but that in any event the request failed under s.117 because the applicants’ error was a procedural omission and as such cannot be corrected under s.117.
So only the four patents initially entered on the restorations application form were considered under s.28(3).
The proprietor of these four cases went into administration. An Administrator was appointed and was responsible for their renewal at the time all four of them became due for renewal and throughout the period in which they could have been renewed late with fines. The evidence showed that the Administrator was generally aware that the patents had to be renewed ‘some time after June 2006’ and that attempts were made to avail himself more specifically of the dates involved, but due to events outside his control this never transpired. However, the evidence showed that while the Administrator did not know the specific dates involved, he was aware that eventually a final date for payment for each would be reached. He was also aware that throughout the period the patents were in his care, no funds were available to make such payments. The HO concluded that in those circumstances, the failure to pay the renewal fees on time was not ‘unintentional’ as required by s. 28 (3) and as such the request to restore the patents was refused.

Citations:

[2009] UKIntelP o09009

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.457332