BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Drs Vitold Mikhailovich Bakhir and Yuri Georgievich Zadorozhny v Solenzara International Limited (Patent) [2001] UKIntelP o15601 (30 March 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o15601.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o15601 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o15601
Summary
Drs Bakhir and Zadorozhny were the inventors of two inventions relating to water purification by electrolytic methods, the subject of two GB patents, 2253860 and 2257982. The applications were filed respectively in the name of Kirk and Charashvili Fine Arts Company Limited and its successor-in-title Kirk and Company International Limited (both hereafter Kirk Limited). The latter eventually assigned the patents to Solenzara International Limited (Solenzara). The claimants suggested that the reason that the applications were filed in the names of the companies was a commercial convenience and it was not intended to give the companies full beneficial ownership, Dr Bakhir at least, denying that he had granted or assigned rights to Kirk Limited. It was agreed by all parties that there was no written assignment or other agreement transferring ownership to the companies, the claimants suggesting that under Section 30(6) this meant that any transfer of the rights from them to the companies was void. It was held that in deciding issues of ownership under Section 37(1) the Comptroller always had regard to equitable rights and not purely legal ownership, and thus the absence of a written agreement did not preclude a finding that rights were transferred. In the present case, Dr Bakhir at least in the period after the applications were filed behaved consistently as though he had transferred entitlement. As for the claim of Dr Zadorozhny, his claim was found to have failed on onus having not filed any relevant evidence to support his claim.
For the claimants, Mr Moody-Stewart sought to distinguish between having the right to apply for, and having the right to be granted, a patent, suggesting that the inventors may have given Kirk Limited the right to apply, but not the right to be granted. This view was rejected on the grounds that the official application form is entitled a request for grant of a patent and the declaration of inventorship similarly refers to the right to a grant.
The defendants claimed that the reference in respect of one of the patents (GB2257982) was out of time under Section 37(5) unless the claimants could show that Kirk Limited knew at the time of grant that they were not entitled. Having found that Kirk Limited were entitled to the grant of a patent, it follows that the reference in respect of that patent was indeed filed out of time.
