Melville v. Cummings [1912] ScotLR 879 (11 July 1912)

Melville v. Cummings [1912] ScotLR 879 (11 July 1912)

An individual partner in a firm engaged in the relevant business has sufficient interest and title to sue for reduction of a patent affecting that business, provided the Lord Advocate's concurrence is obtained. The Lord Advocate's concurrence is strong evidence of title but not conclusive; the Court retains the power to assess relevancy and title to sue.

Citation
[1912] ScotLR 879
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Alexander Melville; Defender and Respondent: Robert Augustus Cummings
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 July 1912
Procedural Posture
Action of Reduction (revocation of Patent) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Dismissal
Outcome
interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; case remitted for proof
Legal Topics
Patents, Title to Sue, Reduction, Concurrence of Lord Advocate, Jurisdiction
Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Patents Title to Sue Reduction Concurrence of Lord Advocate Jurisdiction

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Melville

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Robert Augustus Cummings

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Action of Reduction (revocation of Patent) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an individual partner has title to sue for reduction of a patent affecting the firm's business
  2. 2 Whether the Lord Advocate's concurrence is conclusive on title to sue under the Patents and Designs Act 1907, sec. 94(3)

Ratio Decidendi

An individual partner in a firm engaged in the relevant business has sufficient interest and title to sue for reduction of a patent affecting that business, provided the Lord Advocate's concurrence is obtained. The Lord Advocate's concurrence is strong evidence of title but not conclusive; the Court retains the power to assess relevancy and title to sue.

Court Disposition

interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; case remitted for proof

Orders

  • Recall of Lord Ordinary's interlocutor dismissing the action
  • Remit to Lord Ordinary to allow proof