Burrows v Smith & Anor [2010] EWHC 22 (Ch) (20 January 2010)

Burrows v Smith & Anor [2010] EWHC 22 (Ch) (20 January 2010)

The claimant failed to establish that the defendants breached confidence or infringed copyright, as any rights in the game concept or documents created during employment vested in the employer under the contract, no actionable disclosure or copying by the defendants was proven, and no personal liability of the individual defendant was established.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 22 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Stuart Jeremy Burrows; First Defendant: Adrian Emmett Smith; Second Defendant: Crush Digital Media Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property/civil / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Breach of Confidence, Ownership of Intellectual Property, Employment Contract Interpretation
Intellectual Property Employment Law Copyright Infringement Breach of Confidence Ownership of Intellectual Property Employment Contract Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Jeremy Burrows

Claimant

Adrian Emmett Smith

First Defendant

Crush Digital Media Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property/civil / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's game concept and related documents were protected by copyright and/or confidentiality
  2. 2 Whether the defendants infringed copyright or breached confidence in relation to the claimant's game concept
  3. 3 Whether the employment contract assigned or licensed any rights in the game concept or documents to the employer and its successors

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish that the defendants breached confidence or infringed copyright, as any rights in the game concept or documents created during employment vested in the employer under the contract, no actionable disclosure or copying by the defendants was proven, and no personal liability of the individual defendant was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed