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 >> Keahinuimakahahaikalani Howard Seymour v Coventry University (Patent) [2000] UKIntelP o22300 (29 June 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o22300.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o22300
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Keahinuimakahahaikalani Howard Seymour v Coventry University [2000] UKIntelP o22300 (29 June 2000)
For the whole decision click here: o22300
Patent decision
- BL number
- O/223/00
- Concerning rights in
- GB9808874.3
- Hearing Officer
- Mr G M Bridges
- Decision date
- 29 June 2000
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Keahinuimakahahaikalani Howard Seymour v Coventry University
- Provisions discussed
- PA 1977 section 8
- Keywords
- Entitlement
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
The application in question was proceeding in the name of Coventry University. The referrer claimed he was entitled to the invention covered by the application, because he made the invention as part of an A-level course, and it was therefore fully developed prior to his enrolment at Coventry University. He subsequently included the invention as part of his course-work while studying at the University. The referrer therefore claimed that the invention was not covered by the University Regulations, which specified that intellectual property rights arising from work forming part of a students course-work belonged to the University, and in the absence of any other assignment of the invention to the University, the application should proceed in his name.
The University, as proprietors of the application, did not file a counter-statement, which led to the case being treated as undefended, and each specific fact set out in the referrers statement as being conceded. The referrer therefore succeeded in showing that he was entitled to the application in question and an order was made for it to proceed solely in his name.