BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> I.D.A. Limited et al v University of Southampton et al (Patent) [2004] UKIntelP o08604 (31 March 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o08604.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o08604, [2004] UKIntelP o8604 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o08604
Summary
It was common ground that one of the claimants (M) contacted one of the defendants (H) with the idea of using magnetic particles instead of electrostatic particles in Hs prior cockroach trapping technology. M also supplied samples of magnetic particles for H to test. These tests proved the concept. The hearing officer was not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that H had thought of trapping or killing pests, such as insects, using magnetic particles to adhere to the cuticles of the pests, prior to any contact between the defendants and the claimants on this matter. He therefore found that M was solely responsible for devising this concept. The Hearing Officer also found on the balance of probabilities that M had devised a second inventive concept comprising an insect trap or bait station wherein magnetic particles are anchored to a magnetic zone. He further found that IDA was entitled to the patent applications by virtue of a prior assignment made by M. The Hearing Officer considered an alleged Gentlemans agreement concerning ownership of intellectual property but found that it was not a binding agreement and so it did not disturb his finding on entitlement. The claimants also presented a case for entitlement as the result of an alleged misuse of confidential information but the Hearing Officer did not consider this aspect of the claimants case in view of his finding on other grounds that IDA was entitled to be granted the patents in question.
