To the extent that the employee’s contract of employment says anything different from this it is void. The test is an objective one: the court will consider whether the employee has made other inventions, if so, whether he or she has done so recently and whether they are in a similar technical field. The court will also consider whether equivalent employees are also in the habit of making inventions. (b) Higher status employees – where the employee is one of a relatively high status, the tests to be applied are: (1) whether the invention was made in the performance of the employee’s duties; (2) would the responsibilities of the employee render it inconsistent for the employee to hold the invention for him or herself? This raises the question of whether the employee has a special obligation to further interests of the employer’s business (Reiss Engineering v Harris (1987)). Disputes over the ownership of an invention may be dealt with by the High Court or the Patents County Court which may issue a declaration. Alternatively the Patent Office has a mechanism for resolving such disputes. Where the invention in question has been patented, claims of ownership are limited after two years from the grant of the patent. Section 40 provides:

DOI link for To the extent that the employee’s contract of employment says anything different from this it is void. The test is an objective one: the court will consider whether the employee has made other inventions, if so, whether he or she has done so recently and whether they are in a similar technical field. The court will also consider whether equivalent employees are also in the habit of making inventions. (b) Higher status employees – where the employee is one of a relatively high status, the tests to be applied are: (1) whether the invention was made in the performance of the employee’s duties; (2) would the responsibilities of the employee render it inconsistent for the employee to hold the invention for him or herself? This raises the question of whether the employee has a special obligation to further interests of the employer’s business (Reiss Engineering v Harris (1987)). Disputes over the ownership of an invention may be dealt with by the High Court or the Patents County Court which may issue a declaration. Alternatively the Patent Office has a mechanism for resolving such disputes. Where the invention in question has been patented, claims of ownership are limited after two years from the grant of the patent. Section 40 provides:

To the extent that the employee’s contract of employment says anything different from this it is void. The test is an objective one: the court will consider whether the employee has made other inventions, if so, whether he or she has done so recently and whether they are in a similar technical field. The court will also consider whether equivalent employees are also in the habit of making inventions. (b) Higher status employees – where the employee is one of a relatively high status, the tests to be applied are: (1) whether the invention was made in the performance of the employee’s duties; (2) would the responsibilities of the employee render it inconsistent for the employee to hold the invention for him or herself? This raises the question of whether the employee has a special obligation to further interests of the employer’s business (Reiss Engineering v Harris (1987)). Disputes over the ownership of an invention may be dealt with by the High Court or the Patents County Court which may issue a declaration. Alternatively the Patent Office has a mechanism for resolving such disputes. Where the invention in question has been patented, claims of ownership are limited after two years from the grant of the patent. Section 40 provides: