Download now: Transatlantic Patent Litigation whitepaper - MORE THAN A PARALLEL CASE
​

Remember: A UK patent application may not finally lapse for many years!

No items found.
​
April 8, 2015
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
Life
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

In a recent decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office, an applicant for a UK patent was allowed to file a response to an examination report (“office action”) more than 18 months after the due date for response originally set in the examination report. This is an extraordinary effective extension of time, obtained well after the initial due date for response had passed, but serves as a reminder that a UK patent application is not normally treated as formally lapsed until the end of the normal acceptance period of 4½ years from the priority/filing date. The applicant appears to have been representing himself throughout.

The initial due date for response set in the examination report was 23 July 2012. No response was filed by the applicant by that date. The UKIPO therefore sent on 10 December 2014 the usual letter warning that the end of the four-and-a-half-year acceptance period was approaching. (UK patent applications must normally be in order for grant by four-and-a-half years from the priority date or the filing date if there is no priority claim.) The applicant sent a letter of reply on 24 December 2014 in which he asked to be allowed to file a late response. This was initially refused by the UKIPO examiner, but allowed on appeal in the present decision.

Much of the evidence provided by the applicant was held to be confidential. It seems the applicant was ill, and, importantly, this was for the whole period from the initial due date to when he finally replied asking to be allowed to file the response late. The UKIPO hearing officer said “[the applicant] has experienced a series of unfortunate and unusual events that has spanned the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the period of time from before the specified response date to the present day. I accept that his reasons for responding late are peculiar to him and his application and that they are sufficient in terms of severity and extent to justify the exercise of discretion in this case. I thus decide that the Office will accept a late response on this case.” Interestingly, no provision appears to have been made to protect third parties who may have regarded the application as having been abandoned shortly after the initial due date in July 2012.

By Adam Flint

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​