header-logo header-logo

Patents (Amendment) Rules 2011 (SI 2011/2052)

30 August 2011
Categories: Legislation
printer mail-detail

Amend the Patents Rules 2007, SI 2007/3291 to change the various prescribed time periods...

Commencement date

1 October 2011

Legislation Affected

SI 2007/3291 amended

Summary

Amend the Patents Rules 2007, SI 2007/3291 to change the various prescribed time periods by substituting a reference to “beginning immediately after” for the references to “beginning with” so that when computing a period of time by reference to a relevant event, the date on which the relevant event occurred is not included.

In practical terms, this means where a rule requires a document to be filed within one month of an event and the relevant event occurs on 1 March, then the document must be filed on or before 1 April. This will restore the drafting in this respect to that which appeared in the Patents Rules prior to their modernisation and

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll