Parsons v Convatec Ltd (Re Strike Out and Split Trial Issues) [2026] EWHC 98 (Pat) (21 January 2026)

Parsons v Convatec Ltd (Re Strike Out and Split Trial Issues) [2026] EWHC 98 (Pat) (21 January 2026)

The strike out application was refused because there was no material case management or costs benefit to be gained; the issues raised were better determined at trial on the facts, and the application was in substance an attempt to obtain a preliminary ruling on statutory construction without a proper preliminary issue. The split trial proposal was rejected because there was no clean split of issues, significant overlap and interdependence between patent families, and a split would likely increase costs, delay, and complexity contrary to the overriding objective.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 98 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: David Parsons; Defendant: Convatec Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Patents Compensation Claim (section 40 Patents Act 1977) / Case Management Conference (ccmc); Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Strike out application refused; split trial proposal rejected; other case management issues resolved; costs budgeting adjourned.
Legal Topics
Employee Compensation for Inventions, Outstanding Benefit Under Patents Act 1977 S.40, Aggregation of Patent Benefits, Case Management, Split Trials
Intellectual Property Patents Employee Compensation for Inventions Outstanding Benefit Under Patents Act 1977 S.40 Aggregation of Patent Benefits Case Management Split Trials

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Parsons

Claimant

Convatec Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patents Compensation Claim (section 40 Patents Act 1977) / Case Management Conference (ccmc); Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of Convatec's Amended Defence should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for defending the claim (CPR 3.4(2)(a))
  2. 2 Whether the Court should order a split trial or a single trial for all patent families

Ratio Decidendi

The strike out application was refused because there was no material case management or costs benefit to be gained; the issues raised were better determined at trial on the facts, and the application was in substance an attempt to obtain a preliminary ruling on statutory construction without a proper preliminary issue. The split trial proposal was rejected because there was no clean split of issues, significant overlap and interdependence between patent families, and a split would likely increase costs, delay, and complexity contrary to the overriding objective.

Court Disposition

Strike out application refused; split trial proposal rejected; other case management issues resolved; costs budgeting adjourned.

Orders

  • Dr Parsons' application to strike out parts of Convatec's Amended Defence is refused.
  • Convatec's application for a split trial is rejected; the case will proceed to a single trial covering all patent families.