Decision Nº O/264/21 from Intellectual Property Office - (Patent decisions), 15 April 2021
| Judge | Mr H Jones |
| Court | Intellectual Property Office (United Kingdom) |
| Date | 15 April 2021 |
| Patent Number | GB2571465 |
| Administrative Decision Number | O/264/21 |
| Parties | Close Brewery Rentals Ltd and Geco Holdings Ltd |
PATENTS ACT 1977
BL O/264/21
15th April 2021
CLAIMANT
Close Brewery Rentals Limited
DEFENDANT
Geco Holdings Limited
ISSUE
References under sections 12, 13 and
37 and rule 10 in respect of UK patent
GB2571465
HEARING OFFICER
H Jones
Mr Usman Tariq (instructed by Cameron Intellectual Property) for the Claimant
Mr Jamie Muir Wood (instructed by Mohun Aldridge Sykes) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 9 & 10 February 2021
DECISION
Introduction
1 Patent number GB 2571465 for “A Receptacle Washing Device” was filed on 15 May
2019 and was granted to MD Engineering Solutions Limited (MDES) on 18 February
2020. MDES assigned the patent to the defendant, Geco Holdings Limited (Geco),
on 22 January 2020, and this assignment was registered with the Intellectual
Property Office on 20 February 2020.
2 On 6 March 2020, the claimant, Close Brewery Rentals Limited (CBRL), initiated
proceedings by filing a statement of case before the comptroller under sections
12,13 and 37 of the Patents Act 1977. CBRL asserts that it, rather than Geco, should
be registered as the proprietor of the patent, and that Mr Gary Phillips and Mr Neil
Cashman of CBRL are the true inventors rather than Mr David Hallas and Mr
Matthew Horsey of MDES/Geco. Alternatively, CBRL seeks determinations that it be
included in addition to Geco as a proprietor and that Mr Phillips and Mr Cashman be
named as joint inventors along with Mr Hallas and Mr Horsey. Geco disputes these
claims.
3 Following the normal evidence rounds, the issue came before me at a two-day
hearing held on 9 and 10 February 2021. The claimant was represented by Mr
Usman Tariq of Ampersand Advocates, instructed by Cameron Intellectual Property.
The defendant was represented by Mr Jamie Muir Wood of Hogarth Chambers,
instructed by Mohun Aldridge Sykes.
Conduct of the hearing
4 Due to the coronavirus restrictions in place at the time, the hearing was held entirely
remotely via Microsoft Teams®. From my point of view the hearing ran as smoothly
as one could have hoped for and I am grateful to the parties and their witnesses for
their flexibility and willingness to make the somewhat unusual arrangements work. In
particular, I wish to thank the parties for working together to provide such a well-
structured electronic bundle, which made the task of referring to the relevant
evidence at the hearing extremely straightforward.
The claimed invention
5 The granted patent contains only one independent claim, as follows:
An automated keg and/or cask cleaning device comprising:
an inlet into which a keg or cask can be inserted;
a keg or cask securing device to hold and secure the keg or cask in
place during cleaning;
an ultra-high-pressure water lance that is arranged to be inserted into
and removed from the secured keg or cask;
an outlet that is separate from the inlet and from which the keg or cask
is output once cleaned;
wherein the water lance dispenses water at a pressure between
150,000kPa and 275,000kPa.
6 There are some dependent claims (including a method claim, claim 10, for cleaning a
keg with said automated keg cleaning device), but the claimant and defendant were
content for me to decide the issue on the basis of the independent claim.
Background to the invention
7 I will not say much about the timeline of the events leading to the invention at this
stage, as it will be necessary to consider this and the other evidence in some detail
later. However, it will be helpful to set out some of the background to these
proceedings to provide the context for what follows. Although there are differences
between the position of the claimant, CBRL, and the defendant, Geco, I do not think
there can be any material disagreement over this brief overview.
8 CBRL provide a keg and cask rental service to the brewery industry. In the course of
providing this service they clean the kegs and casks, both externally and internally.
This invention is only about the internal cleaning of casks and kegs. Conventionally
in the industry, this has been done using a caustic cleaning solution.
9 Prior to September 2015, CBRL had been using an ultra-high-pressure (UHP) water
pump to clean the external surfaces of kegs and casks. During the course of
September 2015, Mr Gary Phillips and Mr Neil Cashman of CBRL had the idea of
using a UHP water pump for the purpose of cleaning the internal surfaces of the
casks and kegs.
10 In January 2016, CBRL engaged the services of Mr Colin McCrorie, an independent
To continue reading
Request your trial