GEC Avionics’ Patent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1992 |
| Court | Patent Office |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
5 cases
-
Ian Alexander Shanks (Claimant and Appellant) v Unilever Plc and Others (Defendants and Respondents)
...J said that he did not disagree with a statement by the Superintending Examiner in GEC Avionics Limited's Patent (Ellis' Application) [1992] RPC 107, to the effect that the rationale for the use of the word outstanding was that the employee had already been compensated for the invention thr......
-
Ian Alexander Shanks (Claimant/Appellant) v Unilever Plc and Others
...said: "(2) Is the benefit outstanding? The superintending examiner in this case quoted from the decision in GEC Avionics Ltd.'s Patent, [1992] RPC. 107 to the effect that the rationale being the requirement for outstanding benefit was that the employee had already received compensation for ......
-
Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others
...Is the benefit outstanding? 36 I now turn to the meaning of the word “outstanding” in the expression “outstanding benefit”. In GEC Avionics Ltd's Patent [1992] RPC 107, 115, Mr Vivian, for the Comptroller, noted that the statute did not use words such as “significant” or “substantial” and ......
-
(1)Kelly (James Duncan) (2)Kwok Wai Chiu v GE Healthcare Ltd
...“outstanding”. In Memco Med Aldous J said that he did not disagree with a statement by the Superintending Examiner in GEC Avionics Limited's Patent (Ellis' Application) [1992] RPC 107, to the effect that the rationale for the use of the word outstanding was that the employee had already bee......
Request a trial to view additional results