ARTICLE
8 July 2011

IPO - Entitlement Provisions In Patents Act And CPC

CR
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Contributor

We are an international law firm with a focus on private capital, at the intersection of personal, family and business. We have a broad range of skills and collective legal expertise and experience with an international outlook across the full spectrum of business and personal needs. Our firm is headquartered in London with offices across the UK, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Whether your business operates in a single country or across borders, we’ll put together your perfect team – pulling from our sector and geographical expertise and our partnerships with the best law firms across the world covering 200 legal jurisdictions.

An application to the IPO to commence entitlement proceedings was filed on the second anniversary of the grant of the patent concerned.
United Kingdom Intellectual Property

IP Bulletin - June 2011

Rigcool Ltd v Optima Solutions UK Ltd, BL O/149/11, 5 May 2011

An application to the IPO to commence entitlement proceedings was filed on the second anniversary of the grant of the patent concerned.

A hearing officer of the IPO held that the wording of section 37(5) of the Patents Act 1977, under which the period for filing an application for entitlement proceedings expires after two years beginning with the date of grant (ie the period expires the day before the second anniversary of grant), prevailed over the equivalent wording in article 23.3 of the Community Patent Convention, under which the period expired two years after the date of grant (ie period expires on the second anniversary).

This was despite the provision of section 130(7) of the Patents Act which declares that section 37(5) is one of those sections framed so as to have, as near as practicable, the same effect as the corresponding provisions in the European Patent Convention and Community Patent Convention.

There was a real difference in meaning between section 37(5) and article 23.3 CPC, and a hearing officer of the IPO did not have discretion to vary the meaning of UK law.

Accordingly, the application was out of time.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More