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 >> William Duff and Joseph Brown (Patent) [2009] UKIntelP o06109 (2 March 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2009/o06109.html Cite as: [2009] UKIntelP o6109, [2009] UKIntelP o06109 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o06109
Summary
The claimant, Mr Duff, filed proceedings under section 8, 12 and 13(3) to the effect that he ought to be named as sole patent applicant and sole inventor in respect of patent application number GB 0419912.1 and international patent application number PCT/GB2004/003785. On the basis of written information provided, the comptroller concluded that the relevant parties agreed that claims 9 and 10 could be removed from the patent applications and that Mr Duff should be named as sole patent applicant and sole inventor.
The comptroller concluded there was no finding to make in relation to the section 8 reference given the agreement of the parties to the removal of claims 9 and 10, and the assignment of the application to Mr Duff. With regard to the section 13(3) application, he found that Joseph Brown should not be mentioned as a joint inventor in any subsequent patent granted for the invention and directed that claims 9 and 10 be removed from the application. In relation to the section 12 reference, he issued a declaration to the effect that Mr Duff is entitled to the invention the subject of international patent application number PCT/GB2004/003785 and as such should be named as sole patent applicant. He also found that Mr Duff should be recorded as sole inventor for each jurisdiction designated for the same reasons as outlined in relation to the GB patent application.
