Patent decision
- BL number
- O/188/04
- Concerning rights in
- GB 9901474.8, PCT/GB00/00176, GB 2363373 and foreign appns.
- Hearing Officer
- Mr R C Kennell
- Decision date
- 2 July 2004
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Michael Wayne Crabtree v Ralph Barclay Ross
- Provisions discussed
- PA 1977 sections 8, 10, 12, 37
- Keywords
- Entitlement, Inventorship
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
The patents and applications were in the names of C and R as joint owners and inventors (except for patent GB 2363373 where R was now sole owner); C alleged sole ownership and inventorship. The invention was a device for handling elongate objects, especially pipes for use in offshore drilling, comprising a frame in which packing members each comprised an elastomeric jacket which was deformable at the point of contact with the pipe to allow a variety of diameters to be handled. The case turned on the conflicting evidence of C and R as to who had devised a non-uniform surface profile for the jacket, C having contemplated only flat and circular profiles. On the basis of their cross-examination the hearing officer held that C had failed to prove his case.
In the light particularly of Markem Corp v Zipher Ltd (No1) [2004] RPC 10 the hearing officer found that C and R were joint inventors and prima facie joint owners, on the basis that C had enabled the device insofar as the packing members included a deformable elastomeric jacket, even though he had not reduced it to manufacture, and that R had devised the non-uniform profile.
Although it was not necessary to decide the point, the hearing officer did not accept Rs argument that Cs claim was estopped as a result of his representations in a draft contract and his conduct. The hearing officer also declined to make any finding, at least for the time being, in respect of a parallel family of applications and patents in Cs sole name, which he did not consider to be within the scope of the proceedings. The parties were given two months to make submissions on the form of order, and on costs.
Full decision O/188/04 
98Kb
