Skip Navigation

Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases 2006 123(17):567-579; doi:10.1093/rpc/2006rpc21
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Crown Copyright

[2006] R.P.C. 21

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON'S APPLICATIONS

Court of Appeal

(Ward, Jacob and Wilson L.JJ.): March 2, 20061

[2006] EWCA Civ 145; [2006] R.P.C. 21

Patent—Application—Inventorship—Entitlement—Reference to Patent Office—Finding in favour of referrer—Appeal to Patents Court—Finding in favour of joint ownership—Appeal to Court of Appeal—Relationship between entitlement proceedings and proceedings for breach of confidence—Identification of inventive concept—Relevance of enabling disclosure—Immaterial that inventor did not know whether or how his idea would work—Whether addition of ideas by wrongdoer entitles injured party to the result of the wrongful intermingling—Analogy of asset tracing inapplicable where statute provided free-standing remedies—Observations on correct forum for entitlement proceedings—Observations on desirability of early mediation in entitlement disputes.

Key Words: Entitlement • Inventors • Patents

1 Paragraphs numbers in this judgment are as assigned by the court.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.