Patent decision

BL number
O/217/08
Concerning rights in
EP(UK)1048609B1
Hearing Officer
Mr S Probert
Decision date
30 July 2008
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Neil Paxman v Derek Hughes
Provisions discussed
Section 36(3), section 37(1)
Keywords
Entitlement
Related Decisions
O/143/05

Summary

The Applicant and the Respondent are co-owners of a Patent. They fell out before they were able to fully exploit the Patent. The Applicant says this has led to a deadlock situation, because the Respondent will not consent (as required by s36(3)) to him granting licences to others to work the Patent. The Applicant therefore asked the Comptroller to Order the granting of licences under the Patent.

The Court of Appeal had already confirmed that the Comptroller has jurisdiction to order that licences under the Patent be granted. The question that remained to be decided, now that the parties had submitted evidence, was whether it would be proper for the Comptroller to grant a licence (or the power to licence). The Hearing Officer decided that there was not a true deadlock situation because the Applicant and the Respondent had agreed on at least one method of exploiting the patent, and had each received a substantial sum of money from the sale of products under the Patent. The Hearing Officer therefore decided not to make any Order as to licences under the Patent.

Full decision O/217/08 PDF document40Kb