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 >> Weatherford / Lamb Incorporated (Patent) [2009] UKIntelP o02809 (30 January 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2009/o02809.html Cite as: [2009] UKIntelP o2809, [2009] UKIntelP o02809 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o02809
Summary
The applicant had stated a clear intention to file a divisional application, and had asked to be given at least one month’s notice before the application in suit was granted. The Office did not respond to this request and granted the patent soon afterwards. Over two years later, the attorneys for the applicant contacted the Office to seek a divisional filing. The hearing officer took the view that the Office’s failure to respond to the applicant before granting the patent was an omission, and so rule 107 applied. Following Howmet, he found on the balance of probabilities that the Office’s omission led to the applicant’s failure to file the intended divisional application, and that in the circumstances of the case there were no good reasons why discretion under rule 107 should not be exercised favourably. Rule 107 could be used to rescind the patent, extend the necessary time periods, and so allow a divisional application to be filed. However, he found it appropriate, as a condition of exercising this discretion, to impose third party terms in respect of any matter protected by a divisional application.
