Parsons v Convatec Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 1357 concerned whether more than one invention or patent can be considered together when deciding if an employer obtained outstanding benefit, governed by s 40 of the Patents Act 1977. The second issue was how to take account of the employee’s financial position when determining costs budgets.
Parsons, an analytical chemist, worked from 1991 to 2023 for medical products company Convatec, where he claimed to have devised several inventions, which Convatec patented, generating estimated global sales to 2021 of about $3.2bn (£2.38bn). He sought up to £366m in compensation.
Parsons argued the inventions should be considered on a combined basis, and that he needed certainty on costs liability before trial or premiums and fees could entirely consume his compensation.
Covatec disputed the claim entirely.
Allowing Parsons’ appeal, the court held inventions can be considered together and limited recoverable costs to £4m.
In a postscript, however, Lord Justice Arnold criticised the Patents Act 1977, stating: ‘It is nearly 50 years since the 1977 Act was enacted.
‘In all that time, there have been just two successful claims by employees under section 40... this litigation demonstrates that, even as amended, the legislation is not fit for purpose. It is, as I have already said, very concerning that this case should be taking so long to reach trial and that such a protracted trial is envisaged... One is bound to wonder whether costs have already become a significant obstacle to settlement.
‘The fundamental problem, however, is that the legislation is too uncertain. It needs re-thinking. Other models of employee inventor compensation scheme are available.’
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
