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 >> Joseph Henry George Meider v Edward Henry Whitfield (Patent) [2010] UKIntelP o17110 (26 May 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2010/o17110.html Cite as: [2010] UKIntelP o17110 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o17110
Summary
The patent was granted in the joint names of Mr Meider and Mr Whitfield; both men were also mentioned as inventors. After the relationship between the men broke down, Mr Meider claimed to be the sole owner of the patent, and also that Mr Whitfield should not have been mentioned as an inventor.
After the statement and counterstatement had been filed, the hearing officer issued a Preliminary Evaluation (incorporated as Annex A to the transcript of the decision) indicating what he thought were the issues between the parties, and giving a non-binding opinion as to the likely outcome on each issue. His view was, that the claimant’s statement disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim under section 37, and also that the respondent’s counter-statement disclosed no reasonable grounds for defending the claim under section 13(3). Consequently the hearing officer’s preliminary view at that stage was that the proceedings would result in the patent continuing in the joint names of Mr Meider and Mr Whitfield, but with Mr Meider recorded as the sole inventor.
Neither party consented to an order along the lines of the Preliminary Evaluation, so a hearing was held to consider whether the Comptroller’s powers of case management should be used to give summary judgment as indicated in the Preliminary Evaluation.
Having heard the parties, the hearing officer concluded that his preliminary evaluation was correct.
