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 >> Daletech Electronics Limited v Jemella Limited (Patent) [2014] UKIntelP o50114 (27 November 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2014/o50114.html Cite as: [2014] UKIntelP o50114 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary
The patent relates to an electric hair iron which overcomes the problem of condensation associated with operating an iron at low temperatures, the iron having a control circuit which prevents the supply of power to the heating elements when a temperature sensor detects that the temperature is below a minimum threshold. The claimant was commissioned by the respondent to carry out a variety of tasks relating to the design and testing of electronic circuits within the respondent’s hair irons, including work related to the technology of the patent. The claimant argued that all the development work leading to the invention was theirs alone and that there was no written agreement between the parties to assign any rights in the inventions to the respondent. They also claimed that one of the named inventors and a former employee of the respondent played no part in devising the invention.
The hearing officer found that the former employee had played a part in devising the invention and that both parties were entitled to the patent. However, although there was no written agreement in place between the parties concerning intellectual property rights in the work carried out by the claimant on behalf of the respondent, the general working arrangement of the two companies and their actions leading up to and subsequent to the filing of the patent application, was consistent with both sides assuming that the respondent alone would be entitled to the patent. The hearing officer dismissed the claim and awarded costs to the respondent.
