For the whole decision click here: o20605
Summary
The patent relates to perforated polymeric films for the storage or packaging of plant material. The perforated films provide the desired degree of oxygen permeability to ensure prolonged shelf-life of plant materials stored in them, while at the same time enabling water permeability of packages to be controlled to a desired level. Whilst employed by D, C had developed a machine that produced micro-perforated films covered by the patent. This machine was the subject of a separate European patent in which C was named as inventor.
The Hearing Office followed the approach set out in Markem v Zipher in deciding who had made the invention. In doing so, he found that the invention lay in identifying specific water and oxygen permeabilities suitable for plant material and that C had not contributed to the evaluation of films produced by his micro-perforation machine. C was not entitled to be named as either sole or joint inventor.