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 >> Mastermailer Holdings Plc and Stephen Black and Data Security Limited (Patent) [2010] UKIntelP o43310 (16 December 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2010/o43310.html
Cite as: [2010] UKIntelP o43310
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Mastermailer Holdings Plc and Stephen Black and Data Security Limited [2010] UKIntelP o43310 (16 December 2010)
For the whole decision click here: o43310
Patent decision
- BL number
- O/433/10
- Concerning rights in
- WO 2008/062214
- Hearing Officer
- Mr J Elbro
- Decision date
- 16 December 2010
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Mastermailer Holdings Plc and Stephen Black and Data Security Limited
- Provisions discussed
- Patents Act 1977 Section 8(1)(a), 12(1)(a)
- Keywords
- Decline to deal, Entitlement
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
The claimant requested that the Comptroller decline to deal with this entitlement action on the grounds that the case involved questions of breach of fiduciary duty more suited to determination by a judge, and that there were High Court proceedings dealing with overlapping matters with which this action should be consolidated. The defendant opposed this, denying that any question of fiduciary duty was at issue and believing that the IPO was the more appropriate forum, particularly as regards the implications for costs.
The hearing officer considered that the question of the first defendant’s fiduciary duty towards the claimant was plainly in issue in the proceedings and, following Luxim Corporation v Ceravision Limited [2007] EWHC 1624, this was a matter that would normally be more appropriate for a judge to decide. Taken together with the fact that there were ongoing high court proceedings which appeared to deal with facts which at least overlapped those in the present case, he considered it appropriate to decline to deal with the application.