British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >>
St Bartholomews and The Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Nicholas Wald and Lynne George v Oxford Brookes University, University of Edinburgh, Nigel Groome and Euan Wallace (Patent) [2000] UKIntelP o03700 (3 February 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o03700.html
Cite as:
[2000] UKIntelP o3700,
[2000] UKIntelP o03700
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
St Bartholomews and The Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Nicholas Wald and Lynne George v Oxford Brookes University, University of Edinburgh, Nigel Groome and Euan Wallace [2000] UKIntelP o03700 (3 February 2000)
For the whole decision click here: o03700
Patent decision
- BL number
- O/037/00
- Concerning rights in
- WO 95/32431 & EP 0763206
- Hearing Officer
- Mr G M Bridges
- Decision date
- 3 February 2000
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- St Bartholomews and The Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Nicholas Wald and Lynne George v Oxford Brookes University, University of Edinburgh, Nigel Groome and Euan Wallace
- Provisions discussed
- PA 1977 sections 12 and 13
- Keywords
- Entitlement, Inventorship, Stay of proceedings
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
The claimants launched an entitlement and inventorship action under sections 12 and 13 on an international application, and on the corresponding EP application arising from the entry of the international application into the regional phase. The claimants later launched opposition proceedings at the EPO against the EP application and asked for a stay of the current proceedings pending the outcome of the opposition proceedings. The defendants were not prepared to agree to a stay, and argued that the claimants had failed to make out a prima facie case. Having reviewed the submissions thus far, the Hearing Officer declined to rule that the claimants had failed to make out a prima facie case, and decline to stay the proceedings - not least because the matter before him was one of entitlement and therefore had no real overlap with the opposition proceedings before the EPO.