The fourth renewal of Israel Patent No. 122846 to Tyco Fire & Security was not paid by the deadline of 4 January 2012. A request for reinstatement together with an affidavit was submitted on 9 November 2016, following an earlier request without an appropriate Affidavit that was filed on 1 August 2016 which was rejected in a ruling of 4 August 2016, that without an affidavit such a request could not be considered and that the date of resubmission with an Affidavit would be considered the date of submission. The submission of 1 August included an update that the renewal fee had been paid and a request for reinstatement without any reasons.
On 9 November 2016, an affidavit by Michael Lahat, an employee of Visonic, was submitted. Mr Lahat claimed that Visonic had transferred the rights of the subject patent to the present owners back in July 2013. He further claimed that he was a member of the IP committee of TYCO and consequently, could testify on behalf of the company.
When the renewal fee was due, an employee of Visonic informed the Israel Representative that the company intended to renew the patent themselves, without assistance. In practice the renewal was not accomplished and no explanation was provided. The employee in question left the company hack in November 2013, but prior to her leaving, the rensponsibility for paying renewals was transferred to CPI. In July 2013, this and other Visionic patents were transferred to Tyco. The transfer of ownership was recorded in the Patent register on 31 December 2014, but by this time, the patent in question had already lapsed over a year earlier.
Close to what would have been the fifth renewal date had the patent not lapsed (years 18-20), on 4 January 2016, CPI [MF- Probably CPA – Computer Patent Annuities] tried to perform the renewal, but, since the patent had lapsed, were unsuccessful in this attempt. In March 2016 the renewal company informed the patentee that the mark had lapsed. The attempt to revive was submitted eight months later.
Section 60 of the Patent Law 1967 states that there are three conditions for restoring a patent subject to public opposition:
- that the payment was not made due to reasonable causes
- That the Patentee had not wanted the patent to lapse
- That the request to reinstate was filed as soon as the patent lapsing was known to the applicant or to his representative
The Deputy Commissioner Ms Jacqueline Bracha was not convinced that these conditions were met since it was not clear why the fee was not originally paid in a timely manner since the instructions given to the former employee were not made of record.
The fact that details of the patent were provided to the renewal company does make it clear that the patentee did not want the patent to lapse, so the second requirement is fulfilled, although the after a delay.
No suitable explanation was provided for months passing from when it was discovered that the patent had lapsed until the affidavit was filed. In this regard it is noted that the patentee was an Israel company that was not difficult to communicate with. That said, even if the patentee was a foreign entity there is no justification for eight months passing in the modern age with modern communication channels.
Since two out of three of the essential conditions were not met, the request for reinstatement is refused.