tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post3999009456804679518..comments2024-03-29T06:53:23.405+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Comptroller not a mere rubber-stamp for patent restorationsVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89158556151834688652008-07-25T10:00:00.000+01:002008-07-25T10:00:00.000+01:00I disagree that a stat dec doing no more than reci...I disagree that a stat dec doing no more than reciting the fact that the deponent believes that the failure was inadvertent would be sufficient. That belief might be entirely honest, but consider all the affidavits and stat decs which are sworn every day and which depose to beliefs which are entirely wrong. The test is not whether the deponent considers the failure inadvertent, it is whether the Comptroller is satisfied that it was – in which case it is perfectly reasonable for the Comptroller to call for the submission of the evidence which should have been in the stat dec (i.e. what facts are you basing your statement of belief on please?).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-90501133987800206132008-07-25T05:56:00.000+01:002008-07-25T05:56:00.000+01:00he two-bites-of-the-cherry system of allowing both...he two-bites-of-the-cherry system of allowing both late renewals and post-lapse restorations sends out the wrong message to patent owners?<BR/><BR/><BR/>No. The last and final bite could be particularly bitter, specially when patent owners are required to set out reasons. The "first bite" is kind of 'as of right"...you only need to pay for the extended time..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62577779982513136372008-07-25T02:32:00.000+01:002008-07-25T02:32:00.000+01:00A statutory declaration to the effect that failure...A statutory declaration to the effect that failure in renewing the patents was unintentional and by way of setting out the details of circumstances that led to the non-renewal should be acceptable.<BR/><BR/>Could anybody, please post the case on IPKat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-8146446920372160592008-07-24T10:10:00.000+01:002008-07-24T10:10:00.000+01:00Why take the risk? If the Patent Office is asking...Why take the risk? If the Patent Office is asking for support for the sworn statement that the failure was unintentional, why not just provide that information? Rightly or wrongly, the failure to do so hints at the fact that the original statement may have been putting the issue too high or that there was some sensitivity in providing support for the assertion. That, however, makes little sense as if you look at the summary of the evidence in the decision of the Patent Office, you will see that statement actually goes a little further than merely asserting that the lapse was unintentional. It also provides some evidence of the proprietor’s intention and included a letter from the proprietor confirming that:<BR/><BR/>“It was always the proprietor, Matsushita Electric Industrial Company<BR/>Limited’s intention to keep these patents in force and the lapse was<BR/>unintentional.”<BR/><BR/>All the Patent Office has said is “OK, so you say it was unintentional but, to be satisfied as to that fact, we need to understand how what you claim was an unintended consequence occurred”. Possibilities include failure in communication, clerical error, computer error etc.<BR/><BR/>I take the point in the other comment about not using the same representative to deal with the restoration. It may not be the case here, but the possibility for a conflict is significant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-2068304200859282522008-07-24T09:04:00.000+01:002008-07-24T09:04:00.000+01:00Looking at the UK IPO page on decisions concerning...Looking at the UK IPO <A HREF="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-challenge/p-challenge-decision-results.htm" REL="nofollow">page</A> on decisions concerning restoration, it seems that Matsushita's were not the only cases refused on 1 February 2008. The site gives a slightly lopsided view on the restoration practice as patents which are restored do not have reported decisions made. You might be surprised to learn that it has been accepted that CPA's computer-generated notices sent to large companies are often in the adequate reminders and result in pattern proprietors being unable to form an intention to renew. In short, it's not a great idea to instruct the same company that was responsible for your failure to renew to deal with the restoration.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com