Keen and Another v OHMS Innovations (Pty) Ltd and Others (2019/05483) [2023] ZACCP 2; 2023 BIP 2 (COP) (31 January 2023)

Keen and Another v OHMS Innovations (Pty) Ltd and Others (2019/05483) [2023] ZACCP 2; 2023 BIP 2 (COP) (31 January 2023)

The court found that there are substantial, material disputes of fact regarding inventorship, entitlement to the patent, and the nature of the applicant's engagement with the respondents. These disputes cannot be resolved on the papers due to conflicting affidavits and lack of common cause facts. The court held that motion proceedings are inappropriate for resolving such disputes and that oral evidence is necessary to determine the true inventor and entitlement to the patent. The matter is therefore referred to trial for oral evidence, with costs reserved.

Citation
[2023] ZACCP 2
Parties
Applicant: John Edward Keen; Applicant: MPC Chemicals (SA) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: OHMS Innovations (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Schalk Stephanus Prinsloo; Respondent: Jacobus Johannes Geyser; Respondent: Open House Management Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Court
Court of the Commissioner of Patents
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 January 2023
Case Number
2019/05483
Procedural Posture
Trial Referral / Application for Relief Under Section 28 of the Patents Act; Opposed Motion Proceedings; Referral to Oral Evidence
Outcome
Application referred to trial for oral evidence; costs reserved.
Judges
Bokako
Legal Topics
Patent Entitlement Dispute, Inventorship, Assignment of Patent, Motion Proceedings, Dispute of Facts
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Entitlement Dispute Inventorship Assignment of Patent Motion Proceedings Dispute of Facts

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Edward Keen

Applicant

MPC Chemicals (SA) (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

OHMS Innovations (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Schalk Stephanus Prinsloo

Respondent

Jacobus Johannes Geyser

Respondent

Open House Management Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trial Referral / Application for Relief Under Section 28 of the Patents Act; Opposed Motion Proceedings; Referral to Oral Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is entitled to the rights and title in South African Patent number 2019/05483.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants or respondents are the true inventors of the patented method of underground mining.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent was entitled to apply for and obtain the patent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there are substantial, material disputes of fact regarding inventorship, entitlement to the patent, and the nature of the applicant's engagement with the respondents. These disputes cannot be resolved on the papers due to conflicting affidavits and lack of common cause facts. The court held that motion proceedings are inappropriate for resolving such disputes and that oral evidence is necessary to determine the true inventor and entitlement to the patent. The matter is therefore referred to trial for oral evidence, with costs reserved.

Court Disposition

Application referred to trial for oral evidence; costs reserved.

Orders

  • This matter is referred to trial for oral evidence.
  • Costs of the application are reserved.