Pierce v. Promco S.A., Peter Johnson, Ivar Gjerpe, Bernd Fleischmann [1998] EWHC Patents 275 (18th December, 1998)

Pierce v. Promco S.A., Peter Johnson, Ivar Gjerpe, Bernd Fleischmann [1998] EWHC Patents 275 (18th December, 1998)

Mr Pierce failed to establish any binding agreement, joint venture, or estoppel entitling him to copyright, profits, or further remuneration. His contribution to the Olivia software was not substantial enough for joint authorship. Payments made to him were for his work, and there was no expectation or entitlement to further payment. The claim was dismissed.

Citation
[1998] EWHC Patents 275
Parties
Plaintiff: Mr Pierce; First Defendant: Promco SA; Second Defendant: Mr Johnson; Third Defendant: Mr Gjerpe; Fourth Defendant: Mr Fleischmann
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Copyright, Joint Authorship, Quantum Meruit, Estoppel, Joint Venture, Fiduciary Duty
Intellectual Property Contract Law Equity Copyright Joint Authorship Quantum Meruit Estoppel Joint Venture +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Pierce

Plaintiff

Promco SA

First Defendant

Mr Johnson

Second Defendant

Mr Gjerpe

Third Defendant

Mr Fleischmann

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Pierce was a joint author of the Olivia software and entitled to copyright or profits
  2. 2 Whether representations or agreements entitled Mr Pierce to a share in profits or ownership
  3. 3 Whether Mr Pierce was entitled to quantum meruit for his work

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Pierce failed to establish any binding agreement, joint venture, or estoppel entitling him to copyright, profits, or further remuneration. His contribution to the Olivia software was not substantial enough for joint authorship. Payments made to him were for his work, and there was no expectation or entitlement to further payment. The claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs, subject to legal aid proviso