IDA Ltd & Ors v University of Southampton & Ors [2004] EWHC 2107 (Pat) (28 July 2004)

IDA Ltd & Ors v University of Southampton & Ors [2004] EWHC 2107 (Pat) (28 July 2004)

Claimants failed to prove Professor Howse and Dr. Ashby were not part-devisors of the inventive concepts; evidence showed both sides contributed to the inventive concepts, warranting co-inventorship.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2107 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant/referrer/respondent: I. D. A. Limited; Claimant/referrer/respondent: Colin Thomas Metcalfe; Claimant/referrer/respondent: David Julian Lax; Claimant/referrer/respondent: Polymer Powder Technology (Licensing) Limited; Defendant/respondent/appellant: The University of Southampton; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Philip Edwin Howse; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Roger Edward Ashby
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Patent Entitlement Appeal / High Court Appeal From Comptroller General
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Professor Howse and Dr. Ashby reinstated as co-inventors with Metcalfe and Lax.
Legal Topics
Inventorship, Entitlement, Patent Applications, Co Inventorship, Enabling Disclosure
Intellectual Property Patent Law Inventorship Entitlement Patent Applications Co Inventorship Enabling Disclosure

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

I. D. A. Limited

Claimant/referrer/respondent

Colin Thomas Metcalfe

Claimant/referrer/respondent

David Julian Lax

Claimant/referrer/respondent

Polymer Powder Technology (Licensing) Limited

Claimant/referrer/respondent

The University of Southampton

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Philip Edwin Howse

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Roger Edward Ashby

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Patent Entitlement Appeal / High Court Appeal From Comptroller General

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who are the true inventors of the patent applications?
  2. 2 Are claimants entitled to sole or joint inventorship?
  3. 3 Should Professor Howse and Dr. Ashby be reinstated as inventors?

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to prove Professor Howse and Dr. Ashby were not part-devisors of the inventive concepts; evidence showed both sides contributed to the inventive concepts, warranting co-inventorship.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Professor Howse and Dr. Ashby reinstated as co-inventors with Metcalfe and Lax.

Orders

  • Patent applications to reflect joint inventorship of Metcalfe, Lax, Howse, and Ashby.
  • Entitlement to patents to be shared between claimants and defendants.