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 >> Melea Limited and Cinpres Gas Injection Limited (Patent) [2008] UKIntelP o34208 (23 December 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o34208.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o34208 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o34208
Summary
Cinpres succeeded in the Court of Appeal in its claim to be entitled to the Patent. However the Court of Appeal remitted the matter back to the Comptroller for the Comptroller to adjudicate in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s Judgement. Cinpress provided the Comptroller with a draft order seeking the following relief:
i) Cinpres be entitled to sole ownership of the Patent;
ii) Cinpres’ claims to further relief be stayed. This further relief relates to payment to Cinpres of all sums found due as received by Melea by way of exploiting the patent, full disclosure by Melea of all licence agreements entered into in respect of the patent, and payment of costs incurred by Cinpres during the first set of entitlement proceedings heard before the Office, the Patents Court and the Court of Appeal; and
iii) Melea pay the costs incurred by Cinpres as a result of the matter being remitted to the IPO, to be assessed if not agreed.
The draft order was the subject of a case management conference. The hearing officer used his powers under rule 82 of the Patent Rules to require that both parties, or their legal representatives, attend the conference. Melea failed to attend. Noting Melea’s absence, their possible interest in a claim to joint ownership, and a question of jurisdiction, the hearing officer declined a request to issue the order there and then but agreed to consider a revised draft order, copied to Melea.
