Patent decision

BL number
O/239/14
Concerning rights in
GB2469819
Hearing Officer
Mr J Elbro
Decision date
30 May 2014
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Surinder Palkaur v Bhupinder Seran
Provisions discussed
Sections 13, 37
Keywords
Entitlement, Inventorship
Related Decisions
None

Summary

This was an action brought by the wife and successor-in-title of one of the joint inventors against the other to remove him as both a joint inventor and co-owner. The patent concerned a standalone LED display interconnectable with itself which shows an editable picture.

The hearing officer held that the attempts by the claimant to suggest that the defendant lacked the technical knowledge necessary to the making of the invention failed, and that it was more likely than not that the defendant was a joint inventor. The claimant’s action therefore failed, but the hearing officer went on to consider whether there was in any event an agreement between the original applicants which meant that the defendant would have been entitled to be a co-proprietor even if he had not been a joint inventor. The hearing officer held that the evidence the defendant put forward of a written agreement was weak, and lacked credibility. However, he also held that the overall picture was of a joint enterprise and that on the balance of probabilities there had been an oral agreement to share the ownership.

The hearing officer noted the unsatisfactory nature of much of the evidence put forward, with significant amounts of evidence given orally that could and should have been made in the form of written witness statements, and witnesses of fact giving opinions that would be appropriate only for expert witnesses properly instructed.

Full decision O/239/14 PDF document75Kb