BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[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) [2006] UKIntelP o14206 (8 June 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o14206.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o14206 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o14206
Summary
Mr Ogden had filed a patent application in respect of a blast attenuating apparatus – in particular for containing the explosion from litter bin bombs – which was terminated before publication due to lack of funds. Subsequently Mr McKenzie agreed to provide finance and administrative support, a fresh application was filed (granted as GB 2378382) and a PCT application was filed. Messrs Ogden and McKenzie were named as inventors and the applications were made in their names and in that of Projectile Limited, a company set up by Mr McKenzie.
Mr Ogden subsequently initiated proceedings claiming sole inventorship and proprietorship. In response Mr McKenzie and Projectile claimed that Mr McKenzie was sole inventor and proprietorship should be divided between Messrs Ogden and McKenzie and Projectile.
Held, on inventorship, that there was no material difference between the terminated application on the one hand and the patent and PCT application on the other, and therefore Mr Ogden was declared sole inventor.
Held, on entitlement, that the parties had an oral contract that rights were to be shared, but that an exchange of solicitors’ letters on the role of Projectile did not result in a contract and therefore Projectile had no entitlement. Therefore Messrs Ogden and McKenzie were declared to be jointly entitled to the rights. They were invited to file submissions on the form the order should take, failing which the terms of section 36 would apply.
