John Prosper Cullen v Ringridge Pty Ltd
[1997] APO 19
•13 May 1997
official notice
decision of a dePUTY commissioner of patents
Application : No. PN4508 in the name of John Prosper Cullen
Title: Electrical Component
Action: Request under s.32 by Rinbridge Pty Ltd
Decision: Issued .
Abstract
The person making the s.32 request failed to provide any material in support of their request, and advised that they did not wish to be heard. The patent applicant filed brief evidence in support of his entitlement.
Application directed to continue in the name of John Prosper Cullen (alone).
patents act 1990
decision of a delegate of the commissioner of patents
Re:Patent application No. PN4508 in the name of John Prosper Cullen, and a request under s.32 by Rinbridge Pty Ltd
background
Provisional application PN4508 was filed on 31 July 1995 (and has subsequently been associated with two complete applications – 60847/96 and 60848/96). On 31 July 1996 a request under s.32 was filed by Rinbridge Pty Ltd. The request was duly advertised, and both parties advised that they wished to be heard.
Rinbridge was given until 5 Dec 1996 to lodge evidence in support of their request. They sought (and were granted) a further extension up to 24 Dec 1996. On that day Rinbridge requested a further extension of two weeks. This was not acceded to. Cullen was allowed until 13 March to file their evidence, and on 17 Feb a short declaration was filed.
Subsequently in the course of setting the matter for hearing, Rinbridge advised they did not wish to be heard; and Cullen advised that he wished to be heard only if it was likely that the decision might be adverse to him (and provided a short written submission).
The material
The only material before me in support of the request by Rinbridge is the assertion made on the s.32 request:
“Rinbridge Pty Ltd asserts a proprietory (sic) right of ownership of the invention the subject of the above application, having obtained that proprietorship by way of assignment from the actual inventor, Chan Wood Shek.”
Against this, the patent applicant has sworn a declaration, which in summary asserts:
he (J P Cullen) is the actual inventor;
he made it on his own behalf; it was not made in the course of employment by others or under commission from others;
he has not assigned his rights in the invention to anyone;
Rinbridge was a licensee of the invention, and that licence has been terminated;
Chan Wood Shek was known to him:
‘[Shek] was responsible for design of dies for manufacturing products in accordance with my invention. I know of no reason why he would consider himself to be in possession of any rights in respect of the invention, nor assert any disposal of such rights to others. I had various communications with him during the design of the dies, and at no time did he ever assert anything of this nature to me.’
Decision
In this matter, Rinbridge has made an assertion (and no more than an assertion) of ownership of the invention. There is no basis whatsoever for me to find that Rinbridge has any entitlement to the invention.
On the other hand, Cullen’s declaration generally supports Cullen’s claim to inventorship.
Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of s.32 I direct that application PN4508 continue in the name of John Prosper Cullen (alone).
D Herald
Deputy Commissioner of Patents
Patent attorneys for the applicant : Davies Collison Cave, Melbourne
Patent attorneys for the requestor : Shelston Waters, Sydney
0
0
0