In the case of Shanks-v-Unilever Plc the Supreme Court had to consider what amounts to an “outstanding benefit” for the purposes of determining whether an employee who has made an invention belonging to an employer for which a patent has been granted is entitled to compensation pursuant to s.40(1) of the Patents Act 1977?
During the course of his employment with Unilever, Professor Shanks invented a device designed to measure glucose concentrations in blood, serum or urine.
The rights to the invention belonged to Unilever, which subsequently obtained patents in respect of the invention. Years later, these patents were licensed to companies operating in the blood glucose testing field. Professor Shanks brought a claim for employee compensation against Unilever pursuant to s.40 (1) of the Patents Act 1977. The Intellectual Property Office concluded that the financial benefit to Unilever from licensing the patent rights was £24.5m, but that this was not an “outstanding” benefit as required by the terms of s.40(1). This conclusion was upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal.
Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf.
Call Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email email@example.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.
Latest posts by Shalish Mehta (see all)
- An Australian shoe company has been ordered to pay $450,000 to Deckers, the maker of the UGG boot - 29th May 2019
- Iceland (The Country) Wins Trademark Dispute Against Iceland (The Supermarket) - 29th May 2019
- Scotch whisky brand Glenfiddich loses trademark battle with Indian firm - 18th May 2019
- The UKIPO rejects Kellogg’s trade mark opposition - 15th May 2019
- Ex-soldier wins right to appeal against Diplock trial - 7th April 2019