The patent relates to perforated polymeric films for the storage or packaging of plant material. The perforated films provide the desired degree of oxygen permeability to ensure prolonged shelf-life of plant materials stored in them, while at the same time enabling water permeability of packages to be controlled to a desired level. Whilst employed by D, C had developed a machine that produced micro-perforated films covered by the patent. This machine was the subject of a separate European patent in which C was named as inventor.
The Hearing Office followed the approach set out in Markem v Zipher in deciding who had made the invention. In doing so, he found that the invention lay in identifying specific water and oxygen permeabilities suitable for plant material and that C had not contributed to the evaluation of films produced by his micro-perforation machine. C was not entitled to be named as either sole or joint inventor.
Citations:
[2005] UKIntelP o20605
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Intellectual Property
Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.456370