Hill v Touchlight Genetics Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 107 (Pat) (27 January 2025)

Hill v Touchlight Genetics Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 107 (Pat) (27 January 2025)

The court found that Dr Hill did not conceive the Close-Ended Process or dbDNA Template Process before the Service Agreement took effect. The contemporaneous documents did not support her case, and her oral evidence was inconsistent and not credible. The inventions were devised after the Service Agreement, which assigned all rights to TGL. Dr Hill is not entitled to joint inventorship or any proprietary or financial relief. Touchlight's estoppel, limitation, and unjust enrichment defences did not need to be determined as Dr Hill's claim failed on the primary issues.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 107 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Dr Vanessa Hill; First Defendant: Touchlight Genetics Limited; Second Defendant: Touchlight IP Limited; Third Defendant: Touchlight DNA Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Patent Entitlement and Infringement Claim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Inventorship, Patent Entitlement, Assignment of Rights, Estoppel, Limitation, Unjust Enrichment, Circuity of Actions
Intellectual Property Patents Inventorship Patent Entitlement Assignment of Rights Estoppel Limitation Unjust Enrichment +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Vanessa Hill

Claimant

Touchlight Genetics Limited

First Defendant

Touchlight IP Limited

Second Defendant

Touchlight DNA Services Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Entitlement and Infringement Claim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Hill is a joint inventor of the patents in suit
  2. 2 Whether the inventions were conceived before or after the Service Agreement took effect
  3. 3 Whether the Service Agreement assigned all rights to Touchlight or only rights relating to thermophilic processes

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Dr Hill did not conceive the Close-Ended Process or dbDNA Template Process before the Service Agreement took effect. The contemporaneous documents did not support her case, and her oral evidence was inconsistent and not credible. The inventions were devised after the Service Agreement, which assigned all rights to TGL. Dr Hill is not entitled to joint inventorship or any proprietary or financial relief. Touchlight's estoppel, limitation, and unjust enrichment defences did not need to be determined as Dr Hill's claim failed on the primary issues.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Dr Hill's claim for joint entitlement to the patents is dismissed
  • No order for registration or licence in favour of Dr Hill