Patent decision

BL number

O/512/13

Concerning rights in

EP(UK) 0170375

Hearing Officer

Mr J Elbro

Decision date

17 December 2013

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Ian Alexander Shanks and Unilever Plc, Unilever NV and Unilever UK Central Resources Limited

Provisions discussed

Patents Act 1977 section 40,118 Patents Rules 2007 rule 51

Keywords

Confidentiality, Employees / employment

Related Decisions

O/259/13, O/138/09

Summary

The substantive matters in this case, relating to employee compensation (Patents Act section 40), were dealt with in an earlier Decision. This Decision concerned the confidentiality of various documents relating to the proceedings, including the earlier Decision itself. Under a specific provision, rule 51(3), of the Patents Rules, documents in proceedings under section 40 (in contrast to the situation for other proceedings) are not made available for public inspection unless the hearing officer directs otherwise.

The hearing officer considered the test laid down in Lilly Icos v Pfizer [2002] 1 All E R 842, regarding confidentiality in patent proceedings. He considered the fundamental principle of open justice, alongside considerations of not deterring litigants from putting forward their best case for fear of loss of confidentiality. He also considered the cost implications, particularly relevant before the Comptroller’s tribunal where there is limited costs-recovery, of extensive redaction of the large number of documents in the case.

Weighing these factors, he held that the original Decision should be published with the redactions requested by the defendant, but with company names replaced with a consistent code throughout. He also held that a redacted form of the public part of the transcript should be laid open to inspection. He did not lift the confidentiality restrictions on the other documents in the proceedings.

This decision has been redacted.

Full decision O/512/13 117Kb