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 >>
Shannon Biotechnologies Limited v Dr John Anthony Walters and Shannon Biotechnology Limited (Patent) [2005] UKIntelP o27205 (12 October 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o27205.html
Cite as:
[2005] UKIntelP o27205
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
Shannon Biotechnologies Limited v Dr John Anthony Walters and Shannon Biotechnology Limited [2005] UKIntelP o27205 (12 October 2005)
For the whole decision click here: o27205
Patent decision
- BL number
- O/272/05
- Concerning rights in
- GB0215532.3, GB0217130.4, GB0227595.6, GB 0229315.7 and GB0300052.8; and PCTGB/2003/002866 (submitted in revised grounds)
- Hearing Officer
- Mr P Back
- Decision date
- 12 October 2005
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Shannon Biotechnologies Limited v Dr John Anthony Walters and Shannon Biotechnology Limited
- Provisions discussed
- PA..sections 8(1), 12(1), 13(1), 13(3)
- Keywords
- Entitlement, Inventorship
- Related Decisions
- [2004] UKIntelP o07004
Summary
Shannon Biotechnologies Ltd (Limerick, Ireland) sought relief for entitlement and that its managing director Mr O'Mara be named as the sole inventor on each patent applications in place of the Defendant, Dr Walters. The Claimant did not overcome its burden of proof to establish that Mr O'Mara was either a sole or joint inventor of any of the applications. The Claimants however succeeded in establishing by consequence of employment (section 39(1)(b), at least) that all of the above patent applications belong to them -Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security 1968 (3) All ER 732; Ferguson v John Dawson and Partners (Contractors) 1976 Court of Appeal ALL ER 817 referred to. It was also decided that the Claimant was entitled to at least two of the applications by virtue of a written agreement pursuant to section 7(2)(b). The Hearing Officer decided that both parties are entitled to the PCT application. Order of costs is pending.