It's Liffe, Precisely Non Every Minute Nosotros Know It; On Yer Bike

It's Liffe, exactly non every bit nosotros know it

has retrieved this precious rock from BAILII: it's Liffe Administration too Management v Pinkava too another [2006] EWHC 595 (Pat), a rare conclusion of the Patents Court (Mr Justice Kitchin) final Fri on employees' inventions.

Pinkava, an employee of Liffe, the fellowship that operated the London futures exchange, devised a organisation that permitted trading to accept identify through an electronic telephone substitution of diverse types of fiscal instruments (credit default swaps, credit index swaps, involvement charge per unit of measurement swaps too overnight index swaps). Maintaining that he owned the inventions, Pinkava filed patent applications inwards the United States, where trace of piece of work organisation methods are patentable, too afterwards assigned them to his ain company, De Novo.

Liffe sued Pinkava for misuse of confidential data too breach of contract, too seeking a proclamation that it owned the US patent applications. Pinkava so commenced proceedings inwards the Great Britain Patent Office for a proclamation that he owned the inventions: these proceedings were so transferred to the High Court. Liffe denied that the inventions belonged to Pinkava, contestation that the inventions were made inwards the course of report of the Pinkava's duties too so belonged to it nether s.39(1) of the Patents Act 1977 (which provides that inventions made yesteryear employees inwards the course of report of occupation duties, from which patents tin sack reasonable last expected to result, belong to the employers).

Kitchin J allowed Liffe's claim. When applying the department 39 test, it was necessary to direct maintain regard to the normal duties of the employee too whatever duties peculiarly assigned to him exterior his normal duties. It was so necessary to enquire whether the inventions inwards number were made inwards the course of report of those duties and, if so, whether the an project design mightiness reasonably last expected to direct maintain resulted from the employee carrying out those duties.

On the facts of this case, Pinkava's inventions were non made inwards the course of report of his normal duties exactly were made inwards the surgical operation of a duty that had been peculiarly assigned to him: the duty to practise an telephone substitution tradable credit derivative. Also, nether the circumstances an project design mightiness reasonably direct maintain been expected to number from the carrying out of those duties.

notes how broadly applicable are the provisions that protect employers' rights inwards inventions made yesteryear their employees. Merpel reminds readers that the Great Britain law, which was amended inwards 2004 to larn far easier for employee inventors to secure a portion of the practise goodness derived from an project design yesteryear their employers, all the same provides hard obstacles to last overcome earlier a successful claim tin sack last met.

More on Liffe here, too on Liffey here

Parallel traders, on yer bike ...

Here's a cute piddling merchandise grade conclusion from Mr Justice Lewison, Honda Motor Co Ltd too others v Neesam & others, decided inwards the Chancery Division this Fri too non yet available on BAILII - exactly neatly potted yesteryear Butterworths LexisNexis' All England Direct subscription service.

Neesam were the parallel importers into the EEA of motorbikes made by, too bearing the merchandise grade of Honda. These proceedings concerned for sure motorbikes imported from Australia, the US too Hong Kong, which authorised motorcycle dealers from those countries were non allowed to sell exterior their recognised territory.

Honda sued for merchandise grade infringement, seeking summary judgment. Neesam resisted, contestation that the consent of Honda's subsidiaries inwards supplying the bikes had been plenty to bind Honda itself, or at to the lowest degree that consent to their importation too resale could last inferred.

Lewison J gave summary judgment inwards part, in that place beingness no reasonable prospect that Neesam's defense forcefulness could succeed inwards relation to bikes imported from the US too Hong Kong. is looking forwards to getting concord of the transcript of this judgment so that he tin sack run into why Commonwealth of Australia is different.