When Hartington Conway bought Xtralite Industrial Rooflights Limited (XIRL), the sale agreement included rights to the patent applications in suit which had been applied for by XIRL. These patents related to a glazing system known as the Xlok which was invented by Mr Robert Tweedy who was a Director of XIRL but also Managing Director of its sister company Xtralite Limited (Xtralite). Xtralite brought the action claiming that the patents should not have been included in the sale of XIRL to Hartington Conway because they belonged to Xtralite (not XIRL).
The Hearing Officer found that whilst Tweedy was a director of both companies, his role at XIRL was purely that of a non-executive director. He was thus not an XIRL employee and XIRL had not been entitled to apply for the patents. As Tweedy’s employer, under section 39 Xtralite were entitled to first ownership of the applications.
He found that the requirement in section 30(6) that an assignment be made in writing applies even before a patent application is filed and that in this case no formal assignment from Xtralite to XIRL had been made. Furthermore, particularly given the absence of any consideration , there was no evidence that a non-written assignment had been made at any stage either.
However, he also found that the Claimants were estopped from now claiming ownership of the patent applications. Estoppel requires the presence of three essential elements: a representation from A to B, reliance by B on that representation and B acting to their detriment as a result. Having been (wrongly) advised that it was too late to challenge XIRL’s claim to ownership of the patents, Xtralite had agreed a licence from XIRL to manufacture Xloks. The Hearing Officer found on the evidence that at a meeting shortly before the licence was signed and shortly before Hartington Conway bought XIRL, Xtralite had discussed the licence with Hartington Conway. The Hearing Officer decided that by this discussion Xtralite represented to Hartington Conway that XIRL owned the patent rights. Hartington Conway acted on that representation by continuing with the purchase of XIRL and at a higher price than they would have paid if they had known XIRL might not own the patents in dispute. Furthermore, even if Xtralite had not mentioned the licence with XIRL at that meeting, their failure to do so would still have constituted representation by silent acquiescence.
Judges:
Mr P Hayward
Citations:
[2003] UKIntelP o05503, O/055/03
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Xtralite Limited v Hartington Conway Limited (Patent) IPO 25-Oct-2002
PO Preliminary decision
After the normal evidence rounds in an entitlement dispute, the defendants sought to amend their pleadings, to submit additional evidence and to have a further witness available for . .
Cited by:
See Also – Xtralite (Rooflights) Ltd v Hartington Conway Ltd ChD 31-Jul-2003
The claimant appealed a refusal of the divisional director to substitute itself as applicant for a patent.
Held: The claimant had sold its assets to the respondent. The respondent claimed that an estoppel by representation existed, saying the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 16 October 2022; Ref: scu.455491