If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
For the whole decision click here: o08705
Summary
Bio Pure had approached Jarzon about a new plastics clamp they wished to produce. Following discussions between the two sides, Jarzon produced drawings which incorporated the main invention of the patents and applications in suit. The Hearing Officer held that:
1. There was a contract between Bio Pure and Jarzon for the production of those drawings.
2. To make business sense of that contract, it was necessary to imply a term that any patent rights belonged to Bio Pure (Robin Ray v Classic FM plc [1998] FSR 622 and other case law considered).
3. The main invention had in any case been devised by someone on Bio Pure's side, not by the named inventor Mr Elliott who worked for Jarzon.
A ruling on whether there were any significant features covered by subordinate claims which justified Mr Elliott being named as a co-inventor, and if so, whether that gave Jarzon any rights in respect of those features, was deferred pending further submissions.