Free Law Dissertations - Intellectual Property Abbreviated By Ip Represent Intangible Property
Intellectual property abbreviated by IP represent intangible property nevertheless, it is subject to the same protection as tangible property like a possession of a house. IP consist of copyrights, patents, trademarks and registered and unregistered design rights.
Ownership of IP rights normally vest on the registered proprietor. Nonetheless, there are instances of ownership disputes between the inventor employee and the company employer as to ownership of IP. In particular, prior to 1st of June 1978 an employee’s intervention or discovery in the course of his employment was normally the beneficial interest vested on the employer. In effect, this meant that by virtue of an implied term in the employee’s contract of employment he was a trustee of the invention or discovery, as long as it was within the course of employment and employee was obliges to communicate it to the employer as directed in British Syphon Co Ltd v. Homewood [1956](1).
The current situation is different, despite anything in any rule of law, all inventions created by an employee post-31st May 1978 and falling within S. 39(1) (a) or (b) is regarded as among the employee and the employer as belong on the basis that one of the following conditions is met:
(1) Requirements under section 39(1) (a) PA 1977(2):--- The invention was created in the course of the normal duties of the employee OR in the course of duties falling outside employee’s normal duties however; the invention was particularly delegated to the employee. Furthermore, in any case the invention is reasonably expected to have resulted from the performance of the employee’s duties as identified in Reiss Engineering Co Ltd v Harris [1985](3). OR
(2) Requirement under S. 39(1) (b):--- The invention was created in the course of employee’s duties moreover the time of the creation, the nature of the employee’s duties and the particularity of his responsibility on the nature of his duties, he is deemed as owing a special obligation to advance the interest of the employer’s undertaking.
Under S.39 (1)(b) the case of Harris’ Patent [1985](4) represent that the corresponding rule at common law was that an invention belonged to the employer if it would be inconsistent with good faith on the part of the employee that he should hold it against his employer. This rule still applies today as a means of S.39 (1) (b).
Any other invention not falling with section 39(1) (a) or (b) is to be regarded as belonging to the employee under section 39(2).
OWNERSHIP:
Since the patent was invented post 31st May 1978, Patents Act 1977 is applicable to this situation. Whether Ben is entitled to the ownership of the patent is dependent on whether s.39 (1) (a) OR (1) (b) is applicable. Case of Reiss Engineering Co Ltd have identified that it is not sufficient for a term in the contract to render ownership to the employer. Thus, the term in the contract may not have any sufficient application to suffice in this case.
Dissertations - Free Law Dissertations
