Simple Imports in UK Law

It follows that it is not enough for A to assert that the invention or concept (we use the expression loosely at this stage) was known to its employees and that that itself gave A an entitlement to make an application under s.7 What has to be shown is that A is entitled to B's application or part of it. In the usual run of case, such an entitlement will arise by reason of the operation of some independent rule of law, such as contract, breach of confidence or the like.

We think it follows that, whether or not A is entitled to apply for a patent pursuant to s.7 is, as such, irrelevant to whether or not he can claim an entitlement to an application by B. For the latter he must be able to show that in some way B was not entitled to apply for the patent, either at all or alone. It follows that A must invoke some other rule of law to establish his entitlement—that which gives him title, wholly or in part, to B's application.

Moreover, submitted Mr Watson, it can hardly be the case that Parliament intended to confer on the Comptroller a jurisdiction to consider breach of confidence—he was just given a simple jurisdiction over entitlement. The word "entitlement" clearly imports notions of "title"—of legal rights between the parties.

Accordingly we think one is driven to the conclusion that s.8 is referring essentially to information in the specification rather than the form of the claims. It would be handy if one could go by the claims, but one cannot. s. 8 calls for identification of information and the rights in it. Who contributed what and what rights if any they had in it lies at the heart of the inquiry, not what monopolies were actually claimed.

The words “replacement” and “not materially larger” must be read together and in the same context. The general intention is that the new building should be similar in scale to that which it replaces. The Surrey Homes case illustrates why some qualification to the word “larger” is needed. The qualification provides the necessary flexibility to allow planning judgment and common sense to play a part, and it is not a precise formula.

The criminals involved in MTIC fraud exploit the fact that imports and exports of goods between Member States of the EU are VAT-free. Like all successful forms of fraud, the essential mechanics are simple. No VAT would be payable on the goods when imported, but the onward sale (and any sales further down the chain within State B) would attract a liability to VAT until such time as the goods are exported to another Member State (which could be State A or State C).

The third point which Mr. Underwood takes on the language is based on section 104(3) of the 1989 Act. He submits that thereby Parliament made provision for applicants who had agreements to acquire estates. This suggests, he says, that it discriminated between leases in law and agreements for leases. To the extent that Mr. Underwood is there equating the word "proposes to acquire" with "agrees to acquire", I am not able to accept his submission.