Israel Patent Number 190365 to Abraham Klanss titled “Inflatable Refrigerator and Freezer” lapsed due to failure to pay the second renewal. The Application was submitted on 23 March 2008, and so the deadline for paying the second renewal for years 6-10 was 23 March 2014.
When both the deadline for paying the renewal and the six month grace period passed, the Application was considered lapsed and a notification to that effect published in the November 2014 Israel Patent Office Journal.
From the Affidavit submitted with a request to reinstate the Application it transpired that Applicant had transferred the issue to Advocate Dror Matityahu, but the address of record in the Israel Patent Office was that of Patent Attorney Yoram Tzavyon.
From correspondence between Advocate Dror Matityahu and Patent Attorney Yoram Tzavyon it appears that the Advocate had paid the fee, despite the previous arrangement being that Tzavyon would handle the renewal.
The Applicant received no updates from his lawyer. In January 2017, after trying in vain to contact the lawyer, the Applicant received a status update from the Israel Patent Office and learned that the patent had lapsed. The first attempt at reinstatement was submitted on paper in April. The current regulations require such requests to be submitted electronically and this happened the following month.
The circumstances described above are extreme. If Attorney Matityahu did indeed pay the renewal fee, he certainly did not send proof of payment to the patent office so the renewal was not registered in a timely manner. The Applicant for restoration has affirmed that he is unable to make contact with his lawyer so cannot clarify if the renewal was indeed paid as stated.
Section 60 provides for restoration if a request to restore a patent is submitted in a timely manner. The time that had passed since learning of the problem in January and first attempting to reinstate in April was considered by the Deputy Commissioner as being just about timely, it being noted that all the information was available from the database published on Israel Patent Office website, without requiring contacting the secretariat. The Applicant stated that he did not want the patent to become abandoned.
All things considered, despite the doubt, the Applicant can be considered as having fulfilled the requirements of Section 60 and so the Application for reinstatement is published for Opposition purposes provided the missing Renewal is paid.
Decision by Deputy Commissioner Bracha re Reinstatement of Israel Patent IL 19035, 26 January 2017.
Categories: Intellectual Property, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Agency, Israel Patent Office Rulings, reinstatement, renewal, Section 60, Uncategorized, החלטת רשות הפטנטים, פטנט, פטנטים, קניין רוחני, קנין רוחני