Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd

Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd

Hendry was the actual inventor of the patent while at Cinpres, and the final agreement between Hendry and Cinpres made Cinpres the successor in title and entitled to apply for the patent. The perjury of Hendry in the first proceedings is attributable to Ladney/Melea, as they were co-parties with a common interest and Ladney's title depended on Hendry's false evidence. Therefore, the doctrine of res judicata does not bar Cinpres' claim, and the previous judgment should be set aside. Melea cannot maintain title to the patent based on perjured evidence.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Cinpres Gas Injection Limited; Respondent/defendant: Melea Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patent Entitlement) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Patent Ownership, Res Judicata, Fraud and Perjury, Contractual Interpretation, Issue Estoppel, Bill of Review
Intellectual Property Contract Law Civil Procedure Patent Ownership Res Judicata Fraud and Perjury Contractual Interpretation Issue Estoppel +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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cinpres Gas Injection Limited

Appellant/claimant

Melea Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patent Entitlement) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who was the actual inventor of the patent in dispute?
  2. 2 Did Cinpres acquire the right to apply for the patent?
  3. 3 Does res judicata bar Cinpres' claim?

Ratio Decidendi

Hendry was the actual inventor of the patent while at Cinpres, and the final agreement between Hendry and Cinpres made Cinpres the successor in title and entitled to apply for the patent. The perjury of Hendry in the first proceedings is attributable to Ladney/Melea, as they were co-parties with a common interest and Ladney's title depended on Hendry's false evidence. Therefore, the doctrine of res judicata does not bar Cinpres' claim, and the previous judgment should be set aside. Melea cannot maintain title to the patent based on perjured evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed; the previous judgment is set aside.
  • Cinpres is declared entitled to the patent in dispute.