The dispute over ownership revolved around the validity of an assignment between the parties. The claimant made allegations that the assignment under-valued the patent and that in executing it, a director who was also a shareholder had acted in breach of his fiduciary duty and contrary to the terms of a will under which he had been left shares in trust for the benefit of third parties. A further factor was the existence of parallel proceedings in the court against the claimant for infringement of the patent. In a statement of reasons for a decision to decline to deal given at the hearing, the hearing officer explained that although certain of the questions of law and fact (including some that would require resolution by cross-examination) were within the ambit of what the comptroller would typically handle, the allegations of improper conduct bordering on the fraudulent involved complex questions not normally dealt with by the comptroller, and this coupled with the existence of proceedings already underway in the court, made this a question that would more properly be determined by the court.
Judges:
Mr A C Howard
Citations:
[2008] UKIntelP o08408
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Intellectual Property
Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.456978