Inventor only entitled to share of employer's actual patent earnings

Court of Appeal rules on 1984 gadget case


The inventor of a medical device is entitled to a 'fair share' of the actual benefit earned from that device by his employer, the Court of Appeal has ruled. An inventor cannot complain if his employer did not exploit the invention well or at all, it said.

Professor Ian Shanks invented a device which drew precise amounts of liquid into it by capillary action in 1984 while he was working for a research company owned by Unilever.

Because he worked for Unilever, that company was entitled to the worldwide patents on the device.

Unilever did not market the invention but did license it to others who made use of it in home kits for diagnosing diabetes.

Intellectual property developed by a person in the course of his or her employment generally belongs to the employer, not the employee. But the Patents Act contains provision for 'inventor's compensation' to be paid when an invention provides 'outstanding benefit' to the company which owns the patent.

"Where it appears to the court or the comptroller on an application made by an employee within the prescribed period that the employee has made an invention belonging to the employer for which a patent has been granted, that the patent is (having regard among other things to the size and nature of the employer's undertaking) of outstanding benefit to the employer and that by reason of those facts it is just that the employee should be awarded compensation to be paid by the employer, the court or the comptroller may award him ... compensation," the law said in section 40.

Unilever said that it earned £23m in licensing fees from the invention, and that the "fair share" that Shanks is entitled to should be a proportion of that.

But Shanks said that the company could, and should, have earned far more.

"It may well be that in other hands the invention could have been exploited sooner and on a much larger scale so as to produce a much larger benefit. Professor Shanks so contends, saying that the invention could have produced a royalty income of as much as US$1 billion," said the ruling, explaining his position. "[…] Thus it was contended on behalf of Professor Shanks that his compensation should be based on a higher benefit than the actual benefit of £23m royalties."

"It was said that ... the threshold requirement of 'outstanding benefit' was to be judged not by the actual benefit to the Unilever Group of companies but by the benefit which could have been obtained on the open market if the invention had been fully exploited by licensing earlier."

"This was called the 'putative benefit'," said the ruling. "This putative benefit was also the benefit of which Professor Shanks would be entitled to a 'fair share'."

"[This] effect could lead to a bizarre result," said Lord Justice Jacob in his ruling. "Unilever (the Group) only in fact made £23m. But if the 'benefit' was to be taken as US$1bn the 'fair share' of that could be a large sum – even overtopping the actual benefit."

Lord Justice Jacob said that the law did not intend this, and that the law meant that benefit should be calculated on the basis of the actual events.

"It is the real actual benefit to the actual employer which is all that matters," he said. "If an invention had been immensely valuable and a patent for it could have been or could be (if still in force) exploited for a vast sum or have fetched vast royalties or a great sum on the open market, that is irrelevant. The inventor's particular employer may not have exploited the invention well or at all. If so, the inventor cannot complain. The employer must be taken as it was, warts and all. The provision is not some kind of 'best endeavours to exploit' requirement."

The High Court had said that this person was "a notional non-connected counterparty operating in the appropriate market at the appropriate time", but Lord Justice Jacob rejected the idea that the law was meant to trigger the imagining of what a contemporary auction for the rights to the patent would have generated at the time of its invention.

He also said that some language which might seem to back the view that a hypothetical situation should form part of the assessment was there to assist in situations where patents had not yet expired.

"It is true that the subsection speaks also of the benefit which 'may reasonably be expected to derive from the patent'. That is obviously there to cater for the case where the patents have yet to expire and further benefit may be expected to accrue," he said. "It is the future benefit which may accrue to the particular employer which is to be considered. Not some notional general benefit in the market."

See: The ruling

Copyright © 2010, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • Robotics and 5G to spur growth of SoC industry – report
    Big OEMs hogging production and COVID causing supply issues

    The system-on-chip (SoC) side of the semiconductor industry is poised for growth between now and 2026, when it's predicted to be worth $6.85 billion, according to an analyst's report. 

    Chances are good that there's an SoC-powered device within arm's reach of you: the tiny integrated circuits contain everything needed for a basic computer, leading to their proliferation in mobile, IoT and smart devices. 

    The report predicting the growth comes from advisory biz Technavio, which looked at a long list of companies in the SoC market. Vendors it analyzed include Apple, Broadcom, Intel, Nvidia, TSMC, Toshiba, and more. The company predicts that much of the growth between now and 2026 will stem primarily from robotics and 5G. 

    Continue reading
  • Deepfake attacks can easily trick live facial recognition systems online
    Plus: Next PyTorch release will support Apple GPUs so devs can train neural networks on their own laptops

    In brief Miscreants can easily steal someone else's identity by tricking live facial recognition software using deepfakes, according to a new report.

    Sensity AI, a startup focused on tackling identity fraud, carried out a series of pretend attacks. Engineers scanned the image of someone from an ID card, and mapped their likeness onto another person's face. Sensity then tested whether they could breach live facial recognition systems by tricking them into believing the pretend attacker is a real user.

    So-called "liveness tests" try to authenticate identities in real-time, relying on images or video streams from cameras like face recognition used to unlock mobile phones, for example. Nine out of ten vendors failed Sensity's live deepfake attacks.

    Continue reading
  • Lonestar plans to put datacenters in the Moon's lava tubes
    How? Founder tells The Register 'Robots… lots of robots'

    Imagine a future where racks of computer servers hum quietly in darkness below the surface of the Moon.

    Here is where some of the most important data is stored, to be left untouched for as long as can be. The idea sounds like something from science-fiction, but one startup that recently emerged from stealth is trying to turn it into a reality. Lonestar Data Holdings has a unique mission unlike any other cloud provider: to build datacenters on the Moon backing up the world's data.

    "It's inconceivable to me that we are keeping our most precious assets, our knowledge and our data, on Earth, where we're setting off bombs and burning things," Christopher Stott, founder and CEO of Lonestar, told The Register. "We need to put our assets in place off our planet, where we can keep it safe."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022