FACTS: Petitioners applied for registration of patents with respondent Bureau and hired the services of Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Office to process their patent applications in the Philippines. Two employees of the law firm were assigned to follow up the applications and to get the firm's letters and correspondence from respondent Bureau. Thereafter, notices were sent requiring petitioners to submit the requirements. For failure to comply therewith within the prescribed time, respondent Bureau sent notices of abandonment which were received by the firm's employees in June 1987. It was only after the dismissal of these employees on December 7, 1987 that the law firm was informed of the notices of abandonment. Thus, separate petitions for revival of the patent applications were filed. The petitions were denied by the Director of Patents for being filed out of time. CA affirmed
SC: Petitioners' patent attorneys not only failed to take notice of the notices of abandonment but failed to revive the application within the four-month period. Such constitutes laches.
No comments:
Post a Comment