Kelly and Another v GE Healthcare Ltd: PatC 11 Feb 2009

The court was asked to interpret the application of section 40 of the 1977 Act.
Held: The benefit of the section was to be taken by the actual inventor, and did not extend to those who had merely contributed. In calculating the benefit, the phrase ‘outstanding benefit’ the court should look for ‘something special’ or similar, and required more than merely something substantial or significant. The amount of compensation to be paid was not limited to the situations set out in section 40. An employee making a claim was not required to show the use of skill and effort over and above his duties, though these might affect the calculation.


Floyd J


[2009] EWHC 181 (Pat), Times 03-Apr-2009, (2009) 32(5) IPD 32035, [2010] Bus LR D28, [2009] RPC 12




Patents Act 1977 40


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedShanks v Unilever Plc and Others SC 23-Oct-2019
The claimant appealed from refusal of statutory compensation under the 1977 Act. He had invented a form of pump which was used by his employers, the respondents in the management of diabetes management.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘the correct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.311795