How to avoid Entitlement Disputes

 

Jane Lambert

In Disputes over Ownership of Inventions 6 Aug 2015 NIPC South East I wrote:

"According to the Intellectual Property Office at least 30 disputes are referred to its tribunals every year over who should own or be entitled to apply for a British or foreign patent or be named as an inventor (see the table on page 50 of the IPO's Facts and figures for 2013 and 2014 calendar years)."

As I said in the next sentence, disputes over ownership of patents or patent applications are known as "entitlement disputes."  Of the 41 inter partes hearings, and reasoned decisions made without a hearing in 2014 mentioned in that table, 31 were entitlement disputes.  The situation had not changed much by 2018 which is the last year for which I have been able to find comparable statistics.  According to the table on page 60 of Facts and Figures 2018, entitlement disputes accounted for 24 of the 38 inter partes hearings, reasoned decisions made without a hearing and reviews of opinions in 2017 and 21 of the 32 in 2018.

Entitlement disputes are often heartbreaking because they arise from a breakdown of hope and trust and sometimes friendship.   The right to a patent or patent application is contested fiercely even when the patent is clearly invalid or of little commercial value.  There are three types of relationships from which entitlement disputes tend to arise:

• The first is between friends or acquaintances where one of them has a bright idea and the others pitch in to help him or her develop it.   
• The second is where the inventor hires a product design consultant, engineer or some other contractor to help with the product's design or development.
• The third is where the inventor or the original collaborators accept investment from an angel, venture capitalist or some other third party.

In the first situation, the friends or acquaintances fall out when they meet the first hurdle.   That can occur in a variety of ways.  One of them may want to apply for a patent or make a prototype and the others do not because they will have to dip into funds that they had earmarked for other purposes.  The second situation may arise because the inventor and third party fail to draw up a proper consultancy agreement or rely on the standard terms of business of the third party which do not reflect the parties' intentions.   The third situation can arise where the investor has paid for everything and the inventor has contributed nothing other than his or her initials idea but still insists on the application proceeding in his or her name alone.

Each of those situations can be avoided if the parties take independent legal advice and negotiate a written agreement that reflects the parties' intentions before any time or money is committed.   By independent, I mean a barrister, solicitor or patent attorney who is unconnected with the patent attorney who prosecutes the patent application.   I say that because in every entitlement dispute in which I have been instructed the attorney has been instructed by one of the parties.   It is next to impossible to act for a client but also safeguard the often conflicting interests of the other parties.

A properly negotiated and drafted agreement will anticipate the possibility of the parties falling out over minor as well as major issues and provide machinery for resolving them such as expert determination in the case of minor issues and mediation or some other form of alternative dispute resolution in the case of major issues.  Taking independent legal advice may be daunting at a time of rising interest rates and flattening demand but it is chickenfeed in comparison to the costs of the sort of entitlement dispute that I describe in my 2015 article.   And in relation to that article, the only thing that has changed since 2015 has been the costs of litigation which have increased along with everything else,  

So if you are thinking of collaborating on the development of an invention or investing in such a collaboration have a word with me or some other specialist lawyer or attorney first.  If you are unfortunate enough to be caught up in an entitlement dispute, I (or someone like me) may be able to advise you on how to resolve it without going before a hearing officer.   If a tribunal hearing cannot be avoided, you will need some skilled and experienced specialist representation before it.  Once again, there are members of the Intellectual Property Bar Association (of which I am one), the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and specialist solicitors who can help you,

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 or send me a message through my contact page,

Further Reading

For an example of an entitlement dispute, read Jane Lambert Patents - Bionome Technology Ltd v Clearwater 14 Dec 2024 in NIPC Law.

Direct Access to Barristers on Intellectual Property Matters

Jane Lambert

I am a member of the Intelectual Property Bar Association to which most barristers specializing in intellectual property and technology law belong.  There are over 100 of us.  Most are in London but there are a few in other parts of the country.  Our job is to advise on difficult points of law, draft complex legal instruments and represent clients in litigation and negotiations.  Most of the judges of the Patents and Intellectual Property Enterprise Courts and many of the other judges of the Chancery Division were recruited from our numbers. 

Barristers are often compared to consultant physicians and surgeons in medicine.  Just as a GP might refer patients to specialists for diagnosis or treatment, patent and trade mark attorneys and solicitors seek our opinions, drafts or representation for their clients. Until 2004  we had to be consulted through those intermediaries. Nowadays, many of us accept instructions directly from members of the public on IP matters under the public access scheme.  Earlier this evening, for example, I was asked how to apply for a patent.  Over the weekend I was asked how to challenge a design registration under s.11ZA of the Registered Designs Act 1949,  Other typical requests would be to review a lengthy business format franchise agreement, draft a complaint in a domain name dispute or appear at an online entitlement hearing in the Intellectual Property Office,

It should not be supposed that we do the work of solicitors, patent or trade mark attorneys or other professionals simply because we can be instructed directly.  Our Public Access Guidance forbids us from conducting litigation unless specifically authorized to do so.  Similarly, we do not prosecute patent, design or trade mark registration applications though we draft statements of case, review witness statements and appear before IPO hearing officers and EPO Boards of Appeal.  Our rules prevent us from acting for a client if we believe it to be in the client's interests or the interests of justice for him or her to instruct a solicitor or other professional intermediary.   Far from competing with other professionals, we are actually a source of work for them. 

Though we do not prosecute patent, design or trade mark applications or conduct litigation we may be the best initial point of contact for clients who may need such services.  There are many ways of protecting the same intellectual asset some of which are free such as unregistered design right or the right to bring an action for passing-off.  The optimum method of protection at a particular time and in certain circumstances is not necessarily the most comprehensive.  Similarly, a request for the transfer of a domain name under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy can be much faster, cheaper, safer and even more effective than a trade mark infringement or passing-off claim in the courts.  Counsel's advice on those matters is objective and impartial. If an attorney or solicitor is required we can suggest intermediaries with whom we have worked satisfactorily in the past.

If a business owner, manager or individual seeks advice on a point of law we can advise on most matters without the assistance of a professional intermediary.  That would include such questions 

• "Is this computer-implemented invention patentable?",  
• "Do I have an action for copyright infringement?" 
• "I have just received this demand for undertakings and pile of documents from that big firm of solicitors, what are my options?" or
• "Can you help me understand this complex agreement that a potential customer has just sent me?"

There are some issues such as "Is this invention patentable given the prior art?" when we would need a patent search or some other information that a professional intermediary can supply. 

When a business owner or manager understands contracts and has negotiated deals before we can draft just about any kind of agreement or instrument for him or her.  If he or she is feeling his or her way we would advise the owner or manager to introduce a solicitor, accountant or another professional to the team.

Most litigation would need a solicitor, attorney or other professional but sometimes the client can do the necessary work and all that is required is advocacy.   Many hearings in the Intellectual Property Office or small claims track of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court would fall into that category.  On one occasion I have responded to an appeal in the Court of Appeal and there have been several others when I have appeared in the High Court without a solicitor.

If you want to use our services you will need to supply a passport, driving licence or other photo ID and evidence of residence and if you represent a company your authority to do so.  We will specify what we will do when we shall do it and how much we shall charge in a client care letter.  That is your contract with your barrister.   In the unlikely event that something goes wrong, we are all insured and regulated by the Bar Standards Board or other authorities We have approved complaints handling procedures and the ordinary law of contract and tort applies to us just as much as to any other professional services provider.  You can find more information in the Public Access Guidance from our regulator.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

An Inventor's Guide to Shanks v Unilever

UK Supreme Court

Author Christine Smith Licence CC BY-SA 4.0

Jane Lambert

On 23 Oct 2019, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered a judgment that could affect anyone who works in R&D or in some other capacity in which he or she is likely to devise an invention. It could also affect an inventor who assigns his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer.  Five justices of the Supreme Court found that an invention that had generated revenues of £24 million had been of such "outstanding benefit" for the inventor's employer that the inventor deserved a payment of £2 million in addition to the salary and perks that he had received from his employment.

The case is known as Shanks v Unilever Plc and others and you can read all about it on the Supreme Court's website and my case note, Employees' Inventions - Shanks v Unilever of 28 Oct 2019 in NIPC Law.  My note links to a press summary of the judgment and a video in which Lord Kitchin, who delivered that judgment, reads that summary.

The right to an additional payment known as "compensation" arises out of s.40 of the Patents Act 1977. Subsection (1) could affect you if you are employed in a capacity where you are likely to devise an invention. Subsection (2) if you are employed in some other capacity that entitles you to patent your invention but you sell or grant an exclusive licence to your patent or right to apply for a patent to your employer,

However, inventors can't expect compensation in addition to their pay and benefits for any old invention.  It has to be one that generates an "outstanding benefit" for the employer. That is to say, a benefit that is exceptional or stands out.  That is not easy to prove.  Not many employed inventors apply for compensation and most of the applications that are made fail.

The significance of the Supreme Court's decision is that the Court made an award to the inventor even though £24 million is chicken feed to a multinational group of companies like Unilever.  The inventor, who is now a visiting professor of electronics and electrical engineering in the University of Glasgow, had worked in R&D for a subsidiary of Unilever in the 1980s. He applied for compensation as long ago as 2006. He took his case to the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks who appointed an official known as a "hearing officer" to hear his plea. 

One of the factors that the hearing officer had to consider under s.40 (1) was "the size and nature" of the employer's undertaking.  As Unilever, which makes everything from ice cream to deodorant is massive, the hearing officer could not say that £24 million was an "outstanding benefit" for that company. He dismissed the application. The inventor appealed to Mr Justice Arnold who agreed with the hearing officer. He then appealed to the Court of Appeal which agreed with the judge below and the hearing officer.

The inventor finally appealed to the Supreme Court which is the highest court of the United Kingdom. There Lord Kitchin, who had distinguished himself as a barrister of the intellectual property bar and later as a judge of the Patents Court and Lord Justice of Appeal, said that the hearing officer and the courts below had been looking at the words "the size and nature of the employer's undertaking" the wrong way.  The inventor had not been employed by the whole Unilever group but by a subsidiary that was responsible for R&D.  The correct way to consider the issue was to compare the benefits that had accrued from the invention in this case with all other inventions in the field that had emanated from the same subsidiary.  If that was done the £24 million benefit really did stand out and the inventor was entitled to a fair share of it.

The hearing officer had decided that 5% of the £24 million, which would have amounted to £1.2 million, was a fair share had he been able to make an award of compensation to the inventor and the Supreme Court agreed.  However, as Unilever had enjoyed the use of that money for many years and as the value of that sum had been eroded by inflation the Supreme Court gave the inventor an uplift to £2 million. Mr Justice Arnold had said that corporation tax should be deducted from the £24 million but the Court of Appeal disagreed with him and so did the Supreme Court.

Lord Kitchin made clear that the methodology of assessing the benefit from the invention having regard to the size and nature of the employer's undertaking did not apply to every case.  Sometimes it is appropriate to consider the benefit in relation to the revenues of the whole company as was the case where an employee's invention transformed the fortunes of the company.  Each case depends on its own facts.

While it is still not easy for an inventor to recover compensation over and above his or her salary and benefits this case has undoubtedly removed some obstacles and clarified the law. Most applications for employee's compensation start in the Intellectual Property Office where the procedure is less formal than a court and the costs that may be awarded against the unsuccessful party are considerably lower.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or employee's inventions generally should call me on 020 7404 5252 or send me a message through my contact form.