In relation to a dispute concerning the novelty of one invention, the Court held that testing a new product in a special laboratory under contract is not public as such. The testing process and its results are not usually available to third parties, so it cannot be equated to disclosure of information about the product to the public.
In relation to ownership of a second invention, the appeal court agreed with the findings of the Court of First Instance that the invention could not be regarded as an invention created by the Defendant while performing his direct job responsibilities. It was established that the Defendant worked at the Plaintiff’s company as Production Director, therefore the Defendant had not been hired for inventing activities.
A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law
________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.
