Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 9 (24 January 2008)

Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 9 (24 January 2008)

The Court found that Hendry was the sole inventor of the spillover process while consulting for Cinpres, and that the final agreement between Cinpres and Hendry made Cinpres the successor in title to the invention, entitling it to apply for the patent. The doctrine of res judicata did not bar Cinpres' claim because the final agreement conferred proprietary rights sufficient for entitlement, and the prior proceedings did not resolve this contractual entitlement. The appeal was allowed on these grounds.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 9
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Cinpres Gas Injection Limited; Respondent/defendant: Melea Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Patents Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Patent Entitlement, Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Breach of Confidence, Fraud and Perjury in Litigation
Intellectual Property Contract Law Civil Procedure Patent Entitlement Res Judicata Issue Estoppel Breach of Confidence Fraud and Perjury in Litigation

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cinpres Gas Injection Limited

Appellant/claimant

Melea Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Patents Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hendry was the actual deviser of the invention subject to the patent
  2. 2 Whether Cinpres acquired the right to apply for the patent under the relevant agreements
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel bars Cinpres' claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that Hendry was the sole inventor of the spillover process while consulting for Cinpres, and that the final agreement between Cinpres and Hendry made Cinpres the successor in title to the invention, entitling it to apply for the patent. The doctrine of res judicata did not bar Cinpres' claim because the final agreement conferred proprietary rights sufficient for entitlement, and the prior proceedings did not resolve this contractual entitlement. The appeal was allowed on these grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that Cinpres Gas Injection Limited is entitled to the patent in suit as successor in title to Hendry under the final agreement
  • Any necessary consequential orders to give effect to Cinpres' entitlement