Cinpres Gas Injection Limited v Melea Limited: ChD 23 Nov 2006

The claimant sought to pursue its licence claim after its claim to a proprietary interest in the patent had been dismissed.
Held: The claim misunderstood the way section 37 worked. To have a claim to a license the license the claimant had to show some proprietary interest. The grant of a licence was not to be seen as a form of consolation prize. The Yeda Research case could not be read to say that such a jurisdiction must exist.


The Honourable Mr Justice Mann


[2006] EWHC 2950 (Ch), Times 05-Dec-2006




Patents Act 1977 37


England and Wales


CitedYeda Research and Development Co Ltd v Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and others CA 31-Jul-2006
The claimants sought to amend their claim which had previously been on the basis of a joint ownership, to one of sole ownership.
Held: The application for the amendment being made more han two years after the grant, the amendment could not be . .
See AlsoCinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd ChD 9-Oct-2006
The claimant had sought a declaration as to the ownership of a patent, and now said that a witness had procured his earlier judgment by perjury. The witness now said that he had formed his statement against a feeling of oppression by the threat of a . .

Cited by:

See AlsoCinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd CA 24-Jan-2008
A final judgment may be impugned for fraud. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.246982