Robert Walker LJ said: ‘I cannot entirely agree with the judge’s approach in the passage of his judgment (at 706) which I have already set out. I am not inclined to think that the invention was a ‘combination’ of elements. Mr Z saw Mr X’s drawing (at a meeting at which Mr X was not present) and replaced one type of joint (intended to produce a labyrinthine effect) with another type (a key-joint intended to produce distribution of blast pressure, including rebound pressure). Mr X’s drawing of the joint was not so much useless as directed at a different objective. Nevertheless I feel no doubt that the judge was correct in his conclusion.’
Judges:
Robert Walker LJ
Citations:
[1998] EWCA Civ 1708
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Ltd v Ministry of Defence Northern Ireland Office ChD 1997
Jacobs J said: ‘I do not think it is right to divide up the claim for an invention which consists of a combination of elements and then to seek to identify who contributed which element. I think the inquiry is more fundamental than that. One must . .
Cited by:
Cited – Yeda 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.145187
