Genoprettelsesbegæring ikke imødekommet, da ansøgers amerikanske patentagent ikke havde udvist fornøden omhu.

Genoprettelsesbegæring ikke imødekommet, da ansøgers amerikanske patentagent ikke havde udvist fornøden omhu.

År 1993, den 30. juli afsagde Patentankenævnet

(Grønning-Nielsen, Hans Chr. Thomsen, Terndrup Pedersen)

følgende

KENDELSE i sagen j.nr. P 42/91: Klage fra M & FC Holding Company, Inc., USA, v/ Patentbureau Chas. Hude, København over Patentdirektoratets afgørelse af 21. juni 1991 af patent ansøgning nr. 3686/86.

Den 1. august 1986 indleverede Rockwell International Corporation, USA, v/ Ingeniørfirmaet Budde, Schou & Co en ansøgning om patent på »forbedret spindeltætning i smurte koniske kegleventiler«.

Den 22. marts 1990 meddelte Patentdirektoratet, at ansøgningen var endeligt henlagt, da afgiften for 4. afgiftsår ikke var betalt.

Klageren oplyste ved skrivelse af 27. april 1990, at patentansøgningen var overdraget til klageren. I skrivelsen anmodedes om genoprettelse i henhold til patentlovens § 72.

Ved skrivelse af 17. juli 1990 udbad direktoratet sig en nærmere redegørelse, begrundelse og dokumentation for kravet om genoptagelse.

I skrivelse af 17. september 1990 anførte klageren følgende

»Under henvisning til Patentdirektoratets brev af 17. juli 1990 fremsendes hermed kopi af foreløbige erklæringer udarbejdet af henholdsvis patentansøgningens tidligere indehaver ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, patentansøgningens nuværende indehaver M & FC Holding Company, Inc. og sidstnævntes amerikan-ske patentagent LORUSSO & LOUD.

Som det fremgår heraf, skete den egentlige overdragelse af en række sager fra ROCKWELL til M & FC den 10. marts 1989. ROCKWELL gav derefter i juli 1989 deres årsafgiftbetalingsfirma, Computer Packages Inc. ordre til ikke at betale årsafgifter i nogle af de sager, der var inkluderet i overdragelsen til M & FC.

Forinden (ca. den 30. april 1989) havde M & FC's amerikanske patentagent, LORUSSO & LOUD, modtaget alle akter i de sager, der var inkluderet i overdragelsen og herunder også akterne i ovennævnte danske patentansøgning. Blandt disse akter var der en oversigt, som blev forstået som en oversigt over alt, hvad der var af udestående problemer, som krævede øjeblikkelig opmærksomhed. Der var herunder ingen antydning af, at der skulle være nogen udestående årsafgift i Danmark.

Først i forbindelse med den efterfølgende iværksættelse af selve overdragelsesproceduren i de enkelte lande og herunder indhentning af overdragelsesdokumenter til underskrift herfra blev man opmærksom på, at årsafgiften i Danmark forfaldt endeligt i februar 1990.

På grund af, at betalingen af årsafgifter blev afbrudt fra ROCKWELL's side, uden at M & FC og dermed LORUSSO & LOUD fik kendskab herom, skete der samtidigt det uheldige, at LORUSSO & LOUD aldrig fik nogen rykkerskrivelse (reminder), hverken fra ROCKWELL eller fra anden side angående årsafgiftens forfald. Da netop modtagelsen af rykkerskrivelser er et vigtigt led i det anvendte kontrol- og overvågningssystem, skete der herved et uheldigt brud på den normale procedure med det resultat, at LORUSSO & LOUD heller ikke herved opdagede, at årsafgiften var forfalden.

Som det fremgår heraf, har det på ethvert tidspunkt været ansøgerens mening at opretholde patentansøgningen i Danmark, og samtidigt har ansøgeren til enhver tid udvist al den omhu, som med rimelighed kunne kræves ved at anvende velrenommerede rådgivere og patentagenter. Den kendsgerning, at årsafgiften til trods herfor ikke rettidigt blev indbetalt, må skyldes en række uheldige fejltagelser, som på grund af den foreliggende specielle situation må kunne undskyldes.

Jeg anmoder derfor Patentdirektoratet om genoprettelse af de tabte rettigheder. Så snart de endelige underskrevne erklæringer foreligger, skal jeg fremsende disse.«

De medsendte erklæringer lød således

» I, Richard A. Speer, do hereby make oath to

1. That I am the Senior Patent Counsel of Rockwell International Corporation (hereinafter referred to as »Rockwell«), on whose behalf I have been duly authorized to make this affidavit.

2. The facts contained in this affidavit are either within my personal knowledge or have been extracted by me from the records of Rockwell.

3. That the Danish Patent Application Number 3686/86 (hereinafter referred to as »the Danish Patent Application«) is a patent application currently registered in the name of Rockwell.

4. That the Danish Patent Application was transfered in an Assignment, dated March 10, 1989, from Rockwell to M&FC Holding Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as »M&FC«) with effect from March 10, 1989.

5. That it had been the practice of Rockwell to utilize the annuity service known as Computer Packages, Inc. of 414 Hungerford Drive, Rockville, Maryland, to attend to the payment of annuities in respect of all patents registered in the name of Rockwell.

6. Computer Packages, Inc. is a reliable firm who specializes in the monitoring of renewal due dates, the issuing of reminders for those due dates and the payment of renewal fees.

7. I understand that it is the practice of Computer Packages, Inc. to send a reminder three months before the due date for any renewal fee on a patent. I also understand that if they do not receive instructions, another reminder is sent one month before the due date and then one week before the due date.

8. That decisions on paying maintenance fees for Rockwell patents had been made at corporate headquarters approximately seven months prior to annuity due dates. These decisions were not made at the level of the actual operating companies responsible for the manufacture of the products covered by the patents. In view of the assignment referred to above, it was decided not to renew inter alia the Danish patent application.

9. That, effective the last day of July 1989, the corporate headquarters of Rockwell gave an order to Computer Packages, Inc. not to pay any further annuities on patents, including the Danish Patent Application, included in the assignment of patents from Rockwell to M&FC.

10. That on or about April 30, 1989, Rockwell transferred certain files, including the files relating to the Danish Patent Application, to Lorusso & Loud, patent counsel for M&FC, located at 440 Commercial Street, Boston, Massachusetts.

11. Between March 10, 1989 and July 31, 1989, Rockwell continued to instruct the payment of fees on several patents included in the assignment document referred to in paragraph.'

og

»I, Charles B. Campbell, Jr., do hereby make oath to

1. That I am an authorized officer of M&FC Holding Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as »M&FC«), on whose behalf I have been duly authorized to make this affidavit.

2. That the facts contained in this affidavit are either within my personal knowledge or have been extracted by me from the records of M&FC.

3. That I have read the affidavit executed by Anthony M. Lorusso on the fourth day of September, 1990 in connection with Danish Patent Application Number 3686/86 (hereinafter referred to as »the Danish Patent Application«) and that to the best of my knowledge an belief all the facts set forth therein are true and correct.

4. That the Danish Patent Application relates to an invention which is of importance to M&FC and accordingly there was no intention to allow this patent application to lapse.

5. That when M&FC was informed by Lorusso & Loud that certain patents, including the Danish Patent Application, had lapsed, M&FC instructed Lorusso & Loud to proceed to take all such steps that might be necessary in an effort to restore such patents.

6. M&FC relied entirely on Lorusso & Loud to inform them as to the dates for payments of renewal fees.

7. It is my understanding that Rockwell International Corporation gave an order not to pay renewal fees after July 31, 1989, including the Danish Patent Application M&FC was not informed of this order and if M&FC had been informed, they would have immediately instructed Lorusso & Loud to take the necessary action for payment of the renewal fees.'

og

»I, Anthony M. Lorusso, Esq., do hereby make oath to

1. That I am a partner of Lorusso & Loud, attorneys at law, of 440 Commercial Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109, (hereinafter referred to as »my firm«) on whose behalf I have been duly authorized to make this affidavit.

2. The facts contained in this affidavit are either within my personal knowledge or have been extracted by me from the records of my firm.

3. The primary business of my firm concentrates on patent and trademark law and that one facet of my firm's business is the docketing and timely payment of patent and patent application annuities. To docket patent and patent application annuities, my firm uses a system of reminder cards prepared and used by reliable and well-trained persons. This system has been found to be reliable.

4. The Danish Patent Application Number 3686/86 (hereinafter referred to as »the Danish Patent Application«) is a patent application currently registered is the name of Rockwell International Corporation (hereinafter referred to as »Rockwell«).

5. On December 6, 1988, Rockwell entered into an agreement with BTR Dunlop, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as »BTR«) whereby BTR acquired the assets of the measurement & Flow Control Division of Rockwell. The assets included the rights to the Danish Patent Application.

6. That the Danish Patent Application, together with 575 patent(Bs and patent applications, was transferred in an Assignment dated March 10, 1989 from Rockwell to M&FC Holding Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as »M&FC«), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BTR, Inc.

7. That on or about April 30, 1989, Rockwell transferred certain files, including the files relating to the above-identified Danish Patent Application, to my firm.

8. Together with the files there was a docket which I understood was a full indication of all the action outstanding on each of the files. My firm checked all the files and their corresponding dockets thoroughly and took the necessary steps to ensure that all the outstanding action was taken.

9. There was no indication in the Danish Patent Application that Rockwell had decided not to pay the renewal fees.

10. That as annuity requirements vary country to country, our office has had to examine each assigned case involved in the transfer to learn when annuities were next due. Therefore, upon receipt of these files, we employed a clerk in our office to construct a master list of worldwide properties and their status.

11. Upon completion of this process, we then initiated a worldwide procedure to transfer all involved assets, including the Danish Patent Application, from Rockwell to M&FC. Letters to associates in involved foreign countries were sent in February, 1990. We asked that they draft the necessary Assignment Deeds and Powers of Attorney. This was the commencement of the assignment process.

12. On April 24, 1990, the executed Assignment Deed and the executed Power of Attorney were sent to our Danish associate for recordal in the Danish Patent Office.

13. Some of the patents received by my firm had lapsed, without my firm's knowledge, in 1989 for failure to pay annuities. Accordingly, my firm believed that some of the patents that were transferred by Rockwell to M&FC in the assignment should either not have been included in the transfer of assets, or else each applicable case should have been marked to indicate that they were slated to lapse.

14. That while proceeding with the transfer of assets in each applicable country, my firm was informed by its associates that 1989 annuities had not been paid. In these in stances, my firm instructed its associates to pay any overdue annuities. However, those instructions were often too late and, consequently, several patents in various countries, including the Danish Patent Application, had lapsed due to the failure to pay the annuities for 1989.

15. That my firm contacted authorities directly at the level of the operating companies themselves to learn that a number of the products relating to the patents that had lapsed were still active and important to the companies. The Danish Patent Application is included in this category.

16. That when my firm's foreign associates informed my firm about patents that had lapsed but could still possibly be restored, my firm proceeded diligently to taken action required for such restoration of those patents.

17. That it is my understanding that, effective July 31, 1989, the corporate headquarters of Rockwell gave an order to their annuity service not to pay any further annuities on patents, including the Danish Patent Application, included in the assignment of patents from Rockwell to M&FC.

18. My firm never received reminders regarding any upcoming annuities involving the Danish Patent Application.

19. The use of reminders is standard procedure in docketing systems. The reminders ask the client whether a patent annuity should be paid or not. These reminders are customarly sent three months before the due date. If no response is received from the client, another reminder is usually sent one month before the due date, and then one week before the due date as a final assurance that the client does not want the annuity paid.

20. Upon receipt of tax reminders from foreign associates, my firm advises our client of upcoming annuities. When we received instructions from the client, we promptly instruct the associate to renew or abandon. We rely on foreign associates and computer annuity sevices to remind us of upcoming annuities. As insurance against accidental lapsing, we also check our own files.

21. Because of the large number of files as a result of the Rockwell sale, the lack of a master list of annuity base dates from Rockwell, and the lack of reminders from Computer Packages, Inc. my firm was unable to learn, in a timely fashion, of annuities due in 1989.

22. I believe that if either M&FC or my firm had been properly informed that this order was given by Rockwell to its annuity service, or if Rockwell had provided either M&FC or my firm with a master list of annuity base dates, none of the foreign patents, including the Danish Patent Application would have lapsed without authorization.'

Patentdirektoratet afslog ved skrivelse af 21. juni 1991 genoprettelsesbegæringen med følgende begrundelse

»Ved skrivelse af 27 apr 1990 har De i henhold til § 72 anmodet om genoprettelse af de rettigheder, som gik tabt i ansøgningsnummer 3686/86, idet ansøgningen blev endeligt henlagt på grund af manglende rettidig betaling af årsafgiften for 4. afgiftsår, jf. patentlovens § 41, stk. 1 og stk. 3.

I den anledning skal direktoratet meddele, at vi ikke finder det godtgjort, at ansøger har udvist al den omhu, som man med rimelighed kunne kræve, hvorfor Deres begæring om genoprettelse ikke kan imødekommes.

Det bemærkes først, at ansøger har benyttet sig af en fuldmægtig, Lorusso & Loud, og at ansøger derfor tåler identifikation med denne. Det vil sige, at fejl begået af fuldmægtigen kommer ansøger til skade.

Det fremgår af sagen, at overdragelsen af 575 patenter og patentansøgninger fra Rockwell til ansøger sker den 10 mar 1989. Den 30 apr 1989 modtager Lorusso & Loud akterne sammen med en liste over sagerne.

Det var Lorusso & Louds opfattelse, at listen indeholdt en fuldstændig oversigt over, hvorledes der skulle handles i alle sager. Fuldmægtigen gennemgik derefter omhyggeligt listen sammenholdt med sagsakterne for at sikre sig, at alle nødvendige forholdsregler blev taget. Der var ikke oplysninger om, at der forfaldt årsafgifter i nærværende ansøgning.

Efter direktoratets opfattelse burde fuldmægtig for det første have sikret sig, at listen modtaget den 30 apr 1989 rent faktisk indeholdt en fuldstændig oversigt over, hvad der nærmere skulle foretages i sagerne. Det er naturligt ved en aftale om overdragelse af et så stort antal patentrettigheder, at fuldmægtig nøje kontrollerer oplysningerne i den nævnte liste ved at rette henvendelse til Rockwell International Corporation (overdrager), bl.a. fordi det er almindeligt kendt, at fristoverholdelse i patentsager kræver stor påpasselighed og er af afgørende betydning.

Hertil kommer, at Lorusso & Loud har haft næsten 10 måneder, fra man fik sagen, til årsafgiften for 4. årsafgift endeligt forfaldt, og at fuldmægtig derfor har haft god tid til en omhyggelig gennemgang af nærværende sag.

Det bemærkes videre, at det ikke kan tillægges betydning, at Rockwell undlod at informere ansøger eller dennes fuldmægtig om, at selskabet havde givet ordre til, at der ikke længere skulle betales årsafgifter for den danske ansøgning. Rockwell var ikke længere indehaver af rettighederne til ansøgningen, hvorfor det er naturligt at stoppe med at betale årsafgifter.

Af ovennævnte følger, at Lorusso & Loud ikke har udvist al den omhu, som man med rimelighed kunne kræve.«

Denne afgørelse har klageren ved skrivelse af 20. august 1991 indbragt for Patentankenævnet.

I klagebegrundelse af 24. februar 1992 refererede klageren direktoratets afgørelse og anførte

»Det fremgår heraf, at Patentdirektoratet lægger stor vægt på, at fuldmægtigen ikke skulle have sikret sig, at listen af 30. april 1989 rent faktisk indeholdt en fuldstændig oversigt over, hvad der nærmere skulle foretages i sagerne. Dertil kommer at Patentdirektoratet også i brevet af 21. juni 1991 nævner, at3 fuldmægtigen havde haft god tid til at gennemgå den foreliggende sag.

En nærmere undersøgelse af sagsforløbet afslører imidlertid, at fuldmægtigen netop har været meget omhyggelig med at sikre sig, at alt var i orden.

Som det fremgår af de den 16. oktober 1990 til Patentdirektoratet fremsendte erklæringer fra patentansøgningens nuværende indehaver M & FC Holding Co., Inc. (Bilag 1) og dennes amerikanske patentagent Anthony M. Lorusso, som er medindehaver af fuldmægtigen Lorusso & Loud (Bilag 2), var handlingsforløbet kort beskrevet følgende

Den 10. marts 1989 blev der overdraget et forholdsvis stort antal sager fra Rockwell til M & FC. I juli 1989 gav Rockwell deres årsafgiftsbetalingsfirma Computer Packages, Inc. ordre til ikke at betale årsafgifter i de sager, der var inkluderet i overdragelsen til M & FC.

Forinden (ca. den 30. april 1989) havde M & FC's fuldmægtig, Lorusso & Loud, modtaget alle akterne i de sager, der var inkluderet i overdragelsen og herunder også akterne i ovennævnte danske patentansøgning.

I den danske patentansøgning forfaldt den 4. årsafgift endeligt i februar 1990. Uheldigvis opdagede fuldmægtigen først dette, da den egentlige overdragelsesprocedure blev beordret igangsat i Danmark i begyndelsen af marts 1990. De rettigheder, der gik tabt ved overskridelsen af fristen for betalingen af 4. årsafgift ifølge Patentlovens § 41, stk. 3 blev derefter søgt genoprettet i henhold til patentlovens § 72 ved mit brev af 27. april 1990.

Som det fremgår af nævnte erklæringer og også af vedlagte yderligere erklæring, dateret den 11. december 1991 (Bilag 3), ligeledes udarbejdet af Anthony M. Lorusso havde den oprindelige ansøger, Rockwell udarbejdet en liste »Master Docket«, som er vist i kopi i den nye erklæring. Denne liste udgør en oversigt over udestående frister for året 1989. Denne liste indeholder ikke noget om nogle udestående årsafgifter.

Derudover var hver enkelt af de 575 sager vedhæftet et dokument, hvoraf der er vist en kopi i den nye erklæring under »Exhibit AML 2« og »Exhibit AML 3«. Førstnævnte viser det til den danske sag hørende dokument og sidstnævnte et dokument fra en tysk sag. Alle disse dokumenter viste på forsiden tilsyneladende alle udestående frister på udleveringstidspunktet omkring den 30. april 1989, og dokumenterne blev omhyggeligt kontrolleret. Da det imidlertid viste sig, at de nævnte dokumenter var mangelfulde, blev alle de 575 patenter og patentansøgningers akter gennemset. Hverken dokumenterne eller akterne afslørede, at der forelå nogen frist for betaling af årsafgifter. Der var derfor al mulig grund til at antage, at Rockwell havde iværksat betaling af alle årsafgifter for 1989. Dertil kom at Rockwell fortsatte med at fremsende post angående de overførte sager og herunder også debetnotaer angående årstakster, der var blevet betalt i bl.a. Tyskland. Der var således ingen grund til at antage, at årstaksterne ikke var blevet betalt for 1989, hvilket også underbygges af, at der ikke kom nogen påmindelsesbreve angående forfaldne årstakster i de enkelte sager fra de forskellige udenlandske patentagenter via hverken Rockwell eller årsafgiftbetalingsfirmaet Computer Packages Inc. (CPI).

Det fremgår således, at fuldmægtigen modsat Patentdirektoratets opfattelse netop har sikret sig, at listen, modtaget den 30. april 1990, var komplet, ved omhyggeligt at gennemgå både de på hver sag værende dokumenter og gennemlæse sagsakterne i hver sag. Fuldmægtigen fandt herefter ingen anledning til at kontakte Rockwell, da alt tydede på at være i orden.

I betragtning af det store antal sager finder jeg det derfor fuldt ud godtgjort, at ansøgeren har udvist al den omhu, som man med rimelighed kunne forlange. Det store antal af sager forklarer fuldt ud, at der er gået næsten 10 måneder fra sagernes modtagelse til ordren til iværksættelsen af overdragelsen i Danmark var klar og blev fremsendt.

Jeg anmoder derfor Patentankenævnet om genoprettelse af de tabte rettigheder.'

Klagebegrundelsens bilag 3, erklæring fra Anthony M. Lorusso, har følgende indhold

»I, Anthony M. Lorusso, Esq., do hereby make oath to

1. That I am a partner of Lorusso & Loud, attorneys at law, of 440 Commercial Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109, (hereinafter referred to as »my firm«) on whose behalf I have been duly authorized to make this adden dum to my earlier affidavit.

2. That the facts contained in this affidavit are either within my personal knowledge or have been extracted by me from the reBcords of my firm.

3. That the primary business of my firm concentrates on patent and trademark law and that on facet of my firm's business is the docketing and timely payment of patent and patent application annuities. The use of reminder cards is standard procedure in docketing systems. In these reminder cards, our qualified docket clerk asks the client whether a patent annuity should be paid or not.

4. BTR, Inc. is a long-standing client of my firm for intellectual property matters. BTR advised my firm by letter that a sizeable number of patents had been acquired by BTR and its subsidiary, M&FC Holding Company, from Rockwell International Corporation in an assignment dated March 10, 1989. BTR informed us that my firm would be responsible for all intellectual property matters involved in this acquisition. Presently, this instructing letter can not be found.

5. With the original shipment of files transferred from Rockwell, there was a one-page sheet marked »Master Docket«. This list set out the actions required and the due dates for such action in respect to thirteen patents and applications. A copy of this sheet is attached, marked »Exhibit AML 1«. We acted upon this list appropriately. This sheet does not make any reference to renewal fees being due in respect to the Danish patent application in suit.

6. Lorusso and Loud acted on the »Master Docket« and believed that all necessary action, had been taken.

7. On or about April 30, 1989, Rockwell sent my firm 575 patent and patent application files. Each file had its own docket on the file jacket. Every one of these dockets was checked by my firm to ensure that all outstanding action had been taken. I attach a copy of the docket relating to the file for the patent application in suit. This is referenced »Exhibit AML 2«.

8. As the dockets did not completely list all the necessary outstanding matters, my firm found it necessary to read the contents of all the patent and patent application files to learn of pending deadlines. We found nothing in the files for the patent application in suit to indicate that any renewal fees were due.

9. In the United States, my firm was handling the transferred files in a timely fashion. No patents or trademarks lapsed in the United States.

10. I was aware that Computer Packages, Inc. (CPI) handled renewal fees for Rockwell and expected Rockwell to pass on to my firm any reminders received from CPI. However, because Rockwell used this computerized annuity service, there was no indication in any files that past annuities prior to the Rockwell acquisition had been paid. It was my belief that Rockwell had instructed CPI to pay all renewal fees for 1989 on the patents being transferred.

11. Periodically, we would receive mail forwarded to us from Rockwell regarding the transferred properties. This forwarded mail included debit notes indicating annuities were paid with late fees from our German associate. This was a further indication that Rockwell was still updating us on any relevant information. German renewals were not handled by CPI as German law requires that a German patent attorney must handle payment of renewal fees for that country.

12. Because annuities were being handled in Germany, we felt reassured that if we got these periodic notifications in the form of debit notes, the same was true worldwide and foreign associates would ensure that properties would not lapse.

13. I also attach a copy of a docket from a German file, where we have made reference to an outstanding issue fee. This is referenced »Exhibit AML 3«.

14. It was not until after my firm instructed our Danish associate, Chas. Hude, to record the assignment in the Denmark Patent Office that it came to light that my firm had not been kept fully informed by Rockwell during the transfer of files as to the status of this patent application.

15. While proceeding with the transfer of assets in other applicable countries, my firm was informed by its foreign associates that 1989 annuities had not been paid. In these in stances, my firm instructed all these foreign associates to pay any overdue annuities.

16. Accordingly, we instructed Chas. Hude to take whatever steps were necessary to keep this patent application current as it relates to an invention which is of importance to M&FC and accordingly there was no intention to allow this patent application to lapse. However, the instructions to Chas. Hude were too late and, consequently, this patent application lapsed due to the failure to pay the annuities due in 1989. A similar course of events occurred worldwide as the instructions to

foreign associates in several countries were too late, and accordingly, many patents and patent applications lapsed due to the failure to pay the 1989 annuities.'

Ankenævnet har behandlet sagen på sit møde den

28. maj 1993.

Klageren gav ikke møde.

Ankenævnet skal udtale

I henhold til de af direktoratet anførte grunde og idet det for Ankenævnet anførte ikke findes at kunne føre til andet resultat

bestemmes

Den påklagede afgørelse stadfæstes.

Grønning-Nielsen. Hans Chr. Thomsen. P. Terndrup Pedersen.

Ingen

I forbindelse med overdragelse af ansøgningen til klager skete der dels misforståelser i kommunikationen mellem overdragers og ansøgers patentagenter, dels en brist i det anvendte kontrol- og overvågningssystem hos ansøgers patentagent, der resulterede i, at den årsafgift, der forfaldt endeligt i Danmark i februar 1990 ikke blev betalt rettidigt. Begæringen om genoprettelse blev afslået, da det ikke blev fundet godtgjort, at ansøgers amerikanske patentagent havde udvist den fornødne omhu.