NGOPD Global Ltd v Aspirate N Go Ltd [2016] EWHC 3124 (Pat) (02 December 2016)

NGOPD Global Ltd v Aspirate N Go Ltd [2016] EWHC 3124 (Pat) (02 December 2016)

The complexity and scope of the non-patent law issues (including employment, estoppel, fiduciary duties, and significant factual disputes), the commercial significance of the patents, the number of witnesses, and the need for proper disclosure make the case more properly determined by the High Court rather than the IPO. The hearing officer failed to appreciate the true complexity and significance of the issues, and his decision was one no reasonable tribunal could reach.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3124 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: NGPOD Global Limited; Defendant/appellant: Aspirate N Go Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal From IPO Hearing Officer Decision (entitlement to Patents) / High Court (chancery Division) Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Entitlement to Patents, Jurisdiction of IPO Vs High Court, Complexity of Legal/factual Issues, Costs Regime in IPO Vs High Court, Non Patent Law Issues in Patent Disputes
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Entitlement to Patents Jurisdiction of IPO Vs High Court Complexity of Legal/factual Issues Costs Regime in IPO Vs High Court Non Patent Law Issues in Patent Disputes

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NGPOD Global Limited

Claimant/respondent

Aspirate N Go Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From IPO Hearing Officer Decision (entitlement to Patents) / High Court (chancery Division) Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the IPO should decline to deal with the entitlement claim under section 37(8) of the Patents Act 1977 and section 12(2) in favour of the High Court
  2. 2 Whether the complexity and nature of the issues make the High Court the more proper forum

Ratio Decidendi

The complexity and scope of the non-patent law issues (including employment, estoppel, fiduciary duties, and significant factual disputes), the commercial significance of the patents, the number of witnesses, and the need for proper disclosure make the case more properly determined by the High Court rather than the IPO. The hearing officer failed to appreciate the true complexity and significance of the issues, and his decision was one no reasonable tribunal could reach.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The Comptroller should decline to deal with the entitlement claim; the matter is to be determined by the High Court.