Feeds

Inventor only entitled to share of employer's actual patent earnings

Court of Appeal rules on 1984 gadget case

Security and trust: The backbone of doing business over the internet

The inventor of a medical device is entitled to a 'fair share' of the actual benefit earned from that device by his employer, the Court of Appeal has ruled. An inventor cannot complain if his employer did not exploit the invention well or at all, it said.

Professor Ian Shanks invented a device which drew precise amounts of liquid into it by capillary action in 1984 while he was working for a research company owned by Unilever.

Because he worked for Unilever, that company was entitled to the worldwide patents on the device.

Unilever did not market the invention but did license it to others who made use of it in home kits for diagnosing diabetes.

Intellectual property developed by a person in the course of his or her employment generally belongs to the employer, not the employee. But the Patents Act contains provision for 'inventor's compensation' to be paid when an invention provides 'outstanding benefit' to the company which owns the patent.

"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 employer and that by reason of those facts it is just that the employee should be awarded compensation to be paid by the employer, the court or the comptroller may award him ... compensation," the law said in section 40.

Unilever said that it earned £23m in licensing fees from the invention, and that the "fair share" that Shanks is entitled to should be a proportion of that.

But Shanks said that the company could, and should, have earned far more.

"It may well be that in other hands the invention could have been exploited sooner and on a much larger scale so as to produce a much larger benefit. Professor Shanks so contends, saying that the invention could have produced a royalty income of as much as US$1 billion," said the ruling, explaining his position. "[…] Thus it was contended on behalf of Professor Shanks that his compensation should be based on a higher benefit than the actual benefit of £23m royalties."

"It was said that ... the threshold requirement of 'outstanding benefit' was to be judged not by the actual benefit to the Unilever Group of companies but by the benefit which could have been obtained on the open market if the invention had been fully exploited by licensing earlier."

"This was called the 'putative benefit'," said the ruling. "This putative benefit was also the benefit of which Professor Shanks would be entitled to a 'fair share'."

"[This] effect could lead to a bizarre result," said Lord Justice Jacob in his ruling. "Unilever (the Group) only in fact made £23m. But if the 'benefit' was to be taken as US$1bn the 'fair share' of that could be a large sum – even overtopping the actual benefit."

Lord Justice Jacob said that the law did not intend this, and that the law meant that benefit should be calculated on the basis of the actual events.

"It is the real actual benefit to the actual employer which is all that matters," he said. "If an invention had been immensely valuable and a patent for it could have been or could be (if still in force) exploited for a vast sum or have fetched vast royalties or a great sum on the open market, that is irrelevant. The inventor's particular employer may not have exploited the invention well or at all. If so, the inventor cannot complain. The employer must be taken as it was, warts and all. The provision is not some kind of 'best endeavours to exploit' requirement."

The High Court had said that this person was "a notional non-connected counterparty operating in the appropriate market at the appropriate time", but Lord Justice Jacob rejected the idea that the law was meant to trigger the imagining of what a contemporary auction for the rights to the patent would have generated at the time of its invention.

He also said that some language which might seem to back the view that a hypothetical situation should form part of the assessment was there to assist in situations where patents had not yet expired.

"It is true that the subsection speaks also of the benefit which 'may reasonably be expected to derive from the patent'. That is obviously there to cater for the case where the patents have yet to expire and further benefit may be expected to accrue," he said. "It is the future benefit which may accrue to the particular employer which is to be considered. Not some notional general benefit in the market."

See: The ruling

Copyright © 2010, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

Security and trust: The backbone of doing business over the internet

More from The Register

next story
New 'Cosmos' browser surfs the net by TXT alone
No data plan? No WiFi? No worries ... except sluggish download speed
'Windows 9' LEAK: Microsoft's playing catchup with Linux
Multiple desktops and live tiles in restored Start button star in new vids
iOS 8 release: WebGL now runs everywhere. Hurrah for 3D graphics!
HTML 5's pretty neat ... when your browser supports it
Mathematica hits the Web
Wolfram embraces the cloud, promies private cloud cut of its number-cruncher
Google extends app refund window to two hours
You now have 120 minutes to finish that game instead of 15
Intel: Hey, enterprises, drop everything and DO HADOOP
Big Data analytics projected to run on more servers than any other app
Mozilla shutters Labs, tells nobody it's been dead for five months
Staffer's blog reveals all as projects languish on GitHub
SUSE Linux owner Attachmate gobbled by Micro Focus for $2.3bn
Merger will lead to mainframe and COBOL powerhouse
iOS 8 Healthkit gets a bug SO Apple KILLS it. That's real healthcare!
Not fit for purpose on day of launch, says Cupertino
prev story

Whitepapers

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk
A single remote control platform for user support is be key to providing an efficient helpdesk. Retain full control over the way in which screen and keystroke data is transmitted.
WIN a very cool portable ZX Spectrum
Win a one-off portable Spectrum built by legendary hardware hacker Ben Heck
Saudi Petroleum chooses Tegile storage solution
A storage solution that addresses company growth and performance for business-critical applications of caseware archive and search along with other key operational systems.
Protecting users from Firesheep and other Sidejacking attacks with SSL
Discussing the vulnerabilities inherent in Wi-Fi networks, and how using TLS/SSL for your entire site will assure security.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.