Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
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:
ABSTRACT
Where it appears to the court or the comptroller on an application made by an employee within the prescribed period that the employee has made an invention belonging to the employer for which a patent has been granted, that the patent is (having regard among other things to the size and nature of the employer’s undertaking) of outstanding benefit to the employee should be awarded compensation to be paid by the employer, the court or the comptroller may award him such compensation of an amount determined under s 41 below.