Inventors Struggle Over Cockcroach Killer; Mcgovern Moves; Latest Ip&T

Who gets the credit for killing the cockroach?

Yesterday the Court of Appeal for England as well as Wales (Ward, Jacob as well as Wilson LJJ) allowed an appeal in IDA Ltd as well as others v University of Southampton as well as others [2006] EWCA Civ 145.

Howse, a professor at Southampton University, patented an innovation for killing insects which resulted from his uncovering of the adhesion of electrostatically charged powders to insects’ legs. IDA, a specialist inwards magnetic powders, IDA's employee Metcalfe realized from the reference to ‘electrostatic’ inwards the patent that the innovation depended inwards some agency on the stickiness of the powder. Wondering whether magnetic powders mightiness function instead, having the payoff of non losing their stickiness, Metcalfe approached Howse as well as told him of his idea. Howse followed this suggestion, to come across if magnetic pulverisation would work, alongside IDA supplying the magnetic powders for the trials. When Howse institute that powders worked but likewise equally the electrostatic particles, he got his academy to apply for a patent. IDA as well as then applied nether the Patents Act 1977, s.8, for the patent to last transferred either into its ain cite or at to the lowest degree into the articulation names of itself as well as the university. It was accepted that, after the academy applied for the patent, the burden of proof was upon IDA to demo that it, non the university, was entitled to the grant.

The Patent Office ruled that Metcalfe was alone responsible for devising the notion of trapping and/or killing pests past times using adherent magnetic particles; what Howse had done was only to bear witness that concept. The patent thus belonged to IDA. On appeal Mr Justice Laddie ruled that the ‘sticky toxicant concept’ came from Howse as well as that had non hence shifted the burden of showing that Howse as well as his academy were non at to the lowest degree partly responsible for the invention. He hence saw the parties equally existence jointly entitled to the ownership.

The Court of Appeal allowed IDA's as well as Metcalfe's appeal. It held that

* inwards determining who owned a patent, department viii of the Patents Act 1977 required the courtroom to watch (i) who contributed what as well as (ii) what rights, if any, lay inwards the middle of the inquiry, rather than looking at ownership of the monopolies that were genuinely claimed.

* what i would usually hold back for was ‘the heart’ of the invention. There mightiness last to a greater extent than than i ‘heart’, but each claim was non to last considered equally a assort ‘heart’ on its own.

* inwards this illustration the data at the middle of the innovation was the exchange of magnetic particles for electrostatic particles. That fundamental hinformation was provided alone past times Metcalfe. The ‘heart’ was his sentiment alone.

thinks the Court of Appeal has got it correct on the facts, but yet rather likes the approach of working backwards from the patent claims, to come across who came upward alongside their substance, rather than ploughing through the who-does-what side of the historical evolution of the invention. After all, without the claims, the innovation is zilch other than a fresh chunk of the reason of the art. Merpel wonders whether a farther appeal mightiness last inwards order. Lord Hoffmann has shown some involvement inwards rights inwards patents, equally is apparent from his speech inwards Buchanan v Alba back inwards 2004.

Best cockroach recipes here and here
Amazing cockroach facts here


If you lot were wondering ...

... what the IPKat's friend Patricia McGovern is upward to, he tin tell you. Patricia has taken the bold footstep of leaving Dublin constabulary theatre L. K. Shields to educate her ain intellectual holding boutique, P. McGovern & Co., solicitors. You tin electronic mail Patricia here to state hullo as well as wishing her practiced luck.

Luck of the Irish Gaelic here
Lucky leprechauns here
Irish Patent Office here


Late, later, .. latest IP&T

The Feb number of LexisNexis Butterworths' Intellectual Property as well as Technology Cases has directly been published, but a teeny flake into March. But that doesn't matter, since this is but the difficult re-create version of constabulary reports which IP&T subscribers cause got been able to consult online for some time. Cases inwards this number are

* Markem v Zipher, a somewhat controversial Court of Appeal reversal of a Patents County Court determination inwards which that Court as well as the trial guess had radically dissimilar approaches to the inquiry of a witness's credibility;

* Medion v Thomson Multimedia Sales Federal Republic of Federal Republic of Germany - the ruling of the ECJ that you lot can't pocket soul else's merchandise grade past times sticking your ain cite inwards forepart of it;

* Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM, where the CFI felt that the identify cite Cloppenburg was registrable equally a merchandise grade for services that consumers wouldn't assume to cause got emanated from that mini-metropolis;

* Class International v Colgate-Palmolive, inwards which the ECJ came perilously closed to maxim that the interests of merchandise grade owners were worth sacrificing on the altar of costless travail of goods.

The IP&Ts are edited past times Michael Silverleaf QC, who knows a thing or ii most the discipline ...