Unilever Plc & Ors v Shanks

Unilever Plc & Ors v Shanks

The phrase 'that person' in s.41(2) Patents Act 1977 refers to the actual assignee with its actual attributes, and the benefit to be considered for inventor compensation is the actual benefit derived by the employer or connected person, not a hypothetical or putative benefit based on open market exploitation.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Unilever Plc; Appellant/defendant: Unilever NV; Appellant/defendant: Unilever UK Central Resources Limited; Respondent/claimant: Ian Alexander Shanks
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Employee Inventions, Patent Compensation, Statutory Interpretation
Intellectual Property Employment Law Employee Inventions Patent Compensation Statutory Interpretation

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unilever Plc

Appellant/defendant

Unilever NV

Appellant/defendant

Unilever UK Central Resources Limited

Appellant/defendant

Ian Alexander Shanks

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation of s.41(2) Patents Act 1977 regarding benefit derived from assignment to connected persons
  2. 2 Whether compensation for employee-inventor should be based on actual or putative benefit

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase 'that person' in s.41(2) Patents Act 1977 refers to the actual assignee with its actual attributes, and the benefit to be considered for inventor compensation is the actual benefit derived by the employer or connected person, not a hypothetical or putative benefit based on open market exploitation.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed. The parties are to agree the consequential order and the fair share for Professor Shanks.