Patent decision

BL number

O/171/10

Concerning rights in

GB2433866B

Hearing Officer

Mr S Probert

Decision date

26 May 2010

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Joseph Henry George Meider v Edward Henry Whitfield

Provisions discussed

Section 13(3), 37

Keywords

Entitlement, Inventorship, Striking out, Summary judgement

Related Decisions

None

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.

Full decision O/171/10 430Kb