header-logo header-logo

14 November 2019 / Peter Stevens
Issue: 7864 / Categories: Features , Intellectual property , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employee benefits…but when?

11469
Peter Stevens traces the recent history of compensation awards for employee inventors
  • A ground-breaking provision and the arrival of two cases in quick succession.
  • Legislation: connected and unconnected persons.
  • Ancillary arguments.

In 1977, a ground-breaking provision was introduced which enabled employees to claim compensation if they invent something of outstanding benefit to their employer.

Section 39 of the Patents Act 1977 provides that an invention made by an employee in the course of his employment belongs to his employer, but s 40 entitles the court to award the employee compensation if the invention is of outstanding benefit to the employer (having regard among other things to the size and nature of the employer’s undertaking) and it is just that the employer should compensate him for it.

Section 41 provides that the award of compensation should be such as will secure for the employee a fair share of the benefit, taking into account (among other things):

  • the nature of his duties;
  • his remuneration and other benefits;
  • the effort and
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll