Dichand v Hydraredox Technologies Holdings Ltd

Dichand v Hydraredox Technologies Holdings Ltd

Mr Dichand was not misled or induced by fraudulent misrepresentation; he read and understood the First Assignment, which clearly assigned the four PCT Applications. There was no breach of fiduciary duty, unilateral mistake, or lack of consideration sufficient to void the assignment. The claim fails on all grounds.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Dichand; Defendant: Hydraredox Technologies Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Intellectual Property / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Assignment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Unilateral Mistake, Fiduciary Duty, Unjust Enrichment, Consideration
Intellectual Property Contract Law Patent Assignment Fraudulent Misrepresentation Unilateral Mistake Fiduciary Duty Unjust Enrichment Consideration

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Dichand

Claimant

Hydraredox Technologies Holdings Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Intellectual Property / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Assignment of patent applications was procured by fraudulent misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the First Assignment is void due to unilateral mistake or lack of consideration
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of fiduciary duty by Dr Spaziante

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Dichand was not misled or induced by fraudulent misrepresentation; he read and understood the First Assignment, which clearly assigned the four PCT Applications. There was no breach of fiduciary duty, unilateral mistake, or lack of consideration sufficient to void the assignment. The claim fails on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed