Buchanan v Alba Diagnostics Ltd [2001] ScotCS 26 (6 February 2001)

Buchanan v Alba Diagnostics Ltd [2001] ScotCS 26 (6 February 2001)

The court held that the 321 Patent constituted an 'improvement' on the 311 Application within the meaning of the assignation agreements. Therefore, upon the assignation chain (from Buchanan/Innovations to Mills, and from Mills to Alba Diagnostics), ownership of the 321 Patent vested in the respondents. The pursuer had no title to sue for infringement, and the reclaiming motion failed on both the ownership and infringement issues.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 26
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Nigel Alexander Buchanan; Defenders and Respondents: Alba Diagnostics Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Patent Action / Inner House, Court of Session, Appellate Review of Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary affirmed.
Legal Topics
Patent Ownership, Patent Infringement, Assignment of Intellectual Property, Interpretation of 'improvement' Clauses in Patent Assignments
Intellectual Property Contract Law Patent Ownership Patent Infringement Assignment of Intellectual Property Interpretation of 'improvement' Clauses in Patent Assignments

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Alexander Buchanan

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Alba Diagnostics Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Patent Action / Inner House, Court of Session, Appellate Review of Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the invention covered by UK Patent No. 2287321 ('321 Patent') is an 'improvement' on the earlier patent application WO90/12311 ('311 Application') within the meaning of the assignation agreements; whether the defenders/respondents are the true owners of the 321 Patent by virtue of the assignations; whether the defenders infringed the 321 Patent if the pursuer retained ownership.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the 321 Patent constituted an 'improvement' on the 311 Application within the meaning of the assignation agreements. Therefore, upon the assignation chain (from Buchanan/Innovations to Mills, and from Mills to Alba Diagnostics), ownership of the 321 Patent vested in the respondents. The pursuer had no title to sue for infringement, and the reclaiming motion failed on both the ownership and infringement issues.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary affirmed.

Orders

  • Reclaiming motion refused
  • Respondents declared to be in right of the 321 Patent