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 >> Philip Trevor Slack and Simon Philip Slack v Joshua Charles Michael Haigh (Patent) [2003] UKIntelP o10703 (16 April 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o10703.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o10703
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Philip Trevor Slack and Simon Philip Slack v Joshua Charles Michael Haigh [2003] UKIntelP o10703 (16 April 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o10703
Patent decision
- BL number
- O/107/03
- Concerning rights in
- PCT/GB00/02176
- Hearing Officer
- Mr R C Kennell
- Decision date
- 16 April 2003
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Philip Trevor Slack and Simon Philip Slack v Joshua Charles Michael Haigh
- Provisions discussed
- PA 1977, sections 12 and 13
- Keywords
- Entitlement, Inventorship, Orders
- Related Decisions
- [2002] UKIntelP o38402
Summary
Final decision
The international application was in the name of the defendant as both applicant and inventor. In an interim decision ([2002] UKIntelP o38402), the claimants had been given an opportunity to clarify certain matters. In the light of the further explanation that they offered, the hearing officer found and declared that S P Slack and not the defendant was the inventor, and that P T Slack and not the defendant was entitled to be granted a patent. It being likely that the application had failed to enter any national or regional phases, the hearing officer ordered that P T Slack could file a new UK application under section 12(6) in which S P Slack would be entitled to be named as inventor under section 13(1), and declared under section 12(3) that P T Slack had the right to a European patent under Arts 60 and 61 EPC . The hearing officer declined to make any orders in respect of proceedings in other jurisdictions, but gave the claimants the option of seeking further directions from the comptroller if his declaration was insufficient for such proceedings.