Memco-Med Ltd's Patent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1992 |
| Year | 1992 |
| Court | Chancery Division (Patents Court) |
-
- 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
6 cases
-
Ian Alexander Shanks (Claimant and Appellant) v Unilever Plc and Others (Defendants and Respondents)
...be in 'money or money's worth' – see section 43(7) – the Act contains no definition of 'outstanding benefit'. In Memco-Med Ltd's Patent [1992] RPC 403, Aldous J (as he was then) said at page 414 lines 7–10: 'The word "outstanding" denotes something special and requires the benefit to be mor......
-
Ian Alexander Shanks (Claimant/Appellant) v Unilever Plc and Others
..."Outstanding benefit" 22 Although "benefit" is a defined term under s.43(7), there is no statutory definition of "outstanding". In Memco-Med Ltd's Patent [1992] RPC 403 at page 413 Aldous J. said: "(2) Is the benefit outstanding? The superintending examiner in this case quoted from the deci......
-
Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others
...benefit against all of the profits and the whole turnover of the employer, of which it represented only a very small percentage. In Memco-Med Ltd's Patent [1992] RPC 403, 414, Aldous J indicated that he did not disagree with the approaches of these hearing officers and said that the word “......
-
(1)Kelly (James Duncan) (2)Kwok Wai Chiu v GE Healthcare Ltd
...that the benefit must be in “money or money's worth”– see section 43(7) – the Act contains no definition of “outstanding benefit”. In Memco-Med Ltd's Patent [1992] RPC 403, Aldous J (as he was then) said at page 414 lines 7–10: “The word 'outstanding' denotes something special and requires ......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
No Longer Too Big To Pay
...benefit in this instance. However, more guidance was given by Aldous J in an earlier case (in the Patents Court in Memco-Med Ltd's Patent [1992] RPC 403). Under the 'old' law, Aldous J indicated that it could be useful to assume that the patent was never granted, and then compare the actual......
1 provisions
-
Patents Act 2004
...rather than merely from the intrinsic merits of the invention itself: see the judgment of the Patents Court inMemco-Med Ltd's Patent [1992] RPC 403. 62.Subsections (1) and (2) provide a limited extension of the scope to claim such compensation, by substituting a new section 40(1) (and makin......