Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2012] All ER (D) 16 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2012] EWHC 932 (Pat)
Court: Chancery Division
Judge:

Roger Wyand QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court

Representation Phillip Johnson (instructed by Elkington and Fife LLP) for the claimant.
  Charlotte May (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 17 April 2012

Catchwords

Patent - Application - Refusal - Claimant using third party company to pay fee for application for supplementary protection certificate (SPC) - Company using wrong system to pay fee for application - System automatically generating report that patent refused - SPC lapsing on date of patent - Claimant seeking correction of irregularity and grant of SPC - Hearing Officer dismissing application - Claimant appealing - Whether Hearing Officer erring - Council Regulation (EEC) 1768/92, arts 8(2), 12, 18 - , , (1) - Patents Rules 2007, , s 107.

The Case

Patent Application. Having considered the relevant provisions of the and Council Regulation (EEC) 1798-92 (concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products)the Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's appeal against a ruling of the defendant Comptroller of Patents on the basis that the Hearing Officer had been correct to find that, owing to the misfiling of a patent application, the claimant's patent application had lapsed.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.