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 >>
Phillip Raymond Michael Denne v (Patent) [2007] UKIntelP o16007 (11 June 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o16007.html
Cite as:
[2007] UKIntelP o16007
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
Phillip Raymond Michael Denne v [2007] UKIntelP o16007 (11 June 2007)
For the whole decision click here: o16007
Patent decision
- BL number
- O/160/07
- Concerning rights in
- GB 0309527.0, GB 0309529.6 GB 0309531.2, GB 0409603.8 and GB 0509026,.1
- Hearing Officer
- Mr D J Barford
- Decision date
- 11 June 2007
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Phillip Raymond Michael Denne v Electro Magnetic Rams Ltd
- Provisions discussed
- PA 1977 sections 8,12, 3
- Keywords
- Assignment, Contract, Entitlement, Inventorship, PCT application
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
Mr Denne argued that an assignment he’d made in favour of Electro Magnetic Rams Ltd (EMR) concerning the rights in 0309527.0, 0309529.6 and 0309531.2 was invalid since EMR had not paid up as per the terms of the assignment. EMR argued that nothing was owed. Held that this was an issue of breach of agreement for which the remedy might be damages, but that the assignment was valid.
On entitlement, Electro Magnetic Rams Ltd, company number 4709683 (‘EMR number one’) - the company to which Mr Denne assigned 0309527.0, 0309529.6 and 0309531.2 - was renamed EM Digital Ltd; a new company Electro Magnetic Rams Ltd, company number 5374083 was set up (‘EMR number two’); and GB 0509026.1 - which covers the same invention as GB 0409603.8 and GB 0309531.2 - was filed by EMR number two. Held that the entitlement of EMR number two to the GB applications (and to PCT derivatives) had not been established.
That Mr Denne was the sole inventor was not disputed.
.