Actual deviser. Invention to kill cockroaches - professor cam up with a way - using electrostatic charges to attract them to poison particles. Take poison to other cockroaches too. Got patent, published paper on it. Not so successful because was humid. IDA makes magnetic powers, Metcalfe read prof article and thought this would work for it. Sent power to PHD student at the uni and said try this. It worked - patent. IDA or southampton? Who came up with inventive concept. Metcalfe went on back of southampton - they were already on prior art, new invention was magnetism. Not PHD students - trial and error only.
Henry Bros v Ministry of Defence
Ascertain the essential inventive concept and then determine who contributed that concept. Blastproof pre-fabricated building, take to military checkpoint on a lorry, people protected. Inventive step - way in which walls locked together. Henry Bros drafted the drawing - Mr X did drawings and put together. showed to Mr Z from MofD Mr Z added one element - changed some lines. Inventive concept was what Mr Z did. Core of invention
Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd v Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings
Framework for disputes. Cancer treatment. Who created? Person on sabbatical? HofL 1. who is the actual deviser? (contributed to inventive concept) 2. Then is someone else entitled under s.7(2)(b). Actual deviser - they have Burfden of proof. To take someone off the list of inventors - must show did not contribute to inventive concept. Hoffman: inventive concept is a relationship of discontinuity between the claimed invention and the prior art, inventors will often not know exactly where it lies'.
Hughes v Paxman
Comptroller or court has jurisdiction to resolve deadlock between inventors. Joint inventors fell out - invented something one wanted to licence other said no s.36(3) need consent. Parliament wouldn't want to go to waste - can intervene under s.37 - deal and brokered and imposed on parties. May allow but split royalties.
Greater Glasgow Health Boards' Application
Junior doctor working in Eye hospital. New addition to a device to look at eye. Health Board claimed - court looks at s.39(1)(a) what is the person employed to do? Court - employed to treat patients, not to invent so doctor owned.
LIFFEE Administration& Management v Pinkava
Look at the job description of the individual. Here, he was to maintain technologically robust products. Person specification applied. His personal quality should be innovation - new and valuable ideas. Demonstrate vision, new and alternative ideas that are workable. Someone expected to invent, when he did, and was reasonably expected, it was related to his work.