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!



BAILII [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 >> Andrew Webb v Sandra McGriskin (Patent) [2000] UKIntelP o03600 (3 February 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o03600.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o03600, [2000] UKIntelP o3600

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Andrew Webb v Sandra McGriskin [2000] UKIntelP o03600 (3 February 2000)

For the whole decision click here: o03600

Patent decision

BL number
O/036/00
Concerning rights in
GB 2291342
Hearing Officer
Mr G M Bridges
Decision date
3 February 2000
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Andrew Webb v Sandra McGriskin
Provisions discussed
PA 1977 sections 13 and 37
Keywords
Entitlement, Inventorship
Related Decisions
[2000] UKIntelP o41000

Summary

Webb was a producer of furniture, in particular seating. McGriskin was an Alexander Technique teacher from whom, inter alia, Webb had taken lessons in the technique. On seeing how much easier it was to stand out of a rocking chair that he kept in his workshop, she commissioned a stool on rockers for use in teaching the technique. Subsequently, McGriskin applied for a GB patent in respect of the stool in her sole name.

The crucial feature of the stool was that it had three legs in a triangular configuration, but it was not clear whether one party had devised this first or whether it was a joint idea. What was clear, however, was that McGriskin did not have the expertise to fabricate the stool which involved a complex joint at the join of the rockers. On this basis joint inventorship and joint ownership was found. This interim decision was issued because of the requirements of Section 36(3) and the clear antagonism between the parties at the hearing which boded ill for their cooperation. This decision therefore spelled out the various options available to the parties and asked for submissions.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o03600.html