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 >> Neil Paxman v Derek Hughes (Patent) [2008] UKIntelP o21708 (30 July 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o21708.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o21708 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o21708
Summary
The Applicant and the Respondent are co-owners of a Patent. They fell out before they were able to fully exploit the Patent. The Applicant says this has led to a deadlock situation, because the Respondent will not consent (as required by s36(3)) to him granting licences to others to work the Patent. The Applicant therefore asked the Comptroller to Order the granting of licences under the Patent.
The Court of Appeal had already confirmed that the Comptroller has jurisdiction to order that licences under the Patent be granted. The question that remained to be decided, now that the parties had submitted evidence, was whether it would be proper for the Comptroller to grant a licence (or the power to licence). The Hearing Officer decided that there was not a true deadlock situation because the Applicant and the Respondent had agreed on at least one method of exploiting the patent, and had each received a substantial sum of money from the sale of products under the Patent. The Hearing Officer therefore decided not to make any Order as to licences under the Patent.
