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 >> Ernest Ogden v John McKenzie and Projectile Limited (Patent) [2007] UKIntelP o15807 (7 June 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o15807.html
Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o15807
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Ernest Ogden v John McKenzie and Projectile Limited [2007] UKIntelP o15807 (7 June 2007)
For the whole decision click here: o15807
Patent decision
- BL number
- O/158/07
- Concerning rights in
- GB 2378382 and PCT/GB 2003/000293
- Hearing Officer
- Mr D J Barford
- Decision date
- 7 June 2007
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Ernest Ogden v John McKenzie and Projectile Limited
- Provisions discussed
- PA 1977 sections 12, 13, 36, 37
- Keywords
- Entitlement, Inventorship, Jurisdiction, Licences, Orders, PCT application
- Related Decisions
- [2005] UKIntelP o21905, [2006] UKIntelP o14206
Summary
In BL O/142/06 it was held that that Messrs Ogden and McKenzie had joint entitlement, Projectile had no entitlement, and the sole inventor was Mr Ogden. Submissions were invited on the form the order should take.
There being no agreement on the order, a second hearing was held. Mr Ogden wanted the right to work the patent and to license it without the consent of Mr McKenzie, who in turn proposed a partnership with him having the authority to act for both parties and with consent required to license. Mr McKenzie argued that the market for the invention - a blast attenuating apparatus - lay through Home Office sanction and that cooperation between the parties was essential to secure that.
There was no dispute that section 37 gave jurisdiction to override the default position of section 36 regarding the terms of the order. It was held that, in the light of the poor relationship between the parties, each should be free to work the patent and to license it independently. Renewal fees were to be shared 50/50. Mr McKenzie was ordered to disclose any other patent applications he had made; which were to be subject to the same order as the patent.
.