Zacco helps inventor claim IP rights
14 May 2020
Zacco recently provided valuable professional assistance in a patent related dispute between Zacco’s client Roya Sabetrasekh – a former PhD candidate at UiO (University of Oslo) – and the UiO. The dispute concerned Sabetrasekh’s right to be entitled co-inventor in the patents obtained by the private Swedish company Ascendia AB. We now await the court’s decision regarding whether or not she is entitled to reasonable remuneration.
Inventor or not: the dispute begins
The dispute dates back several years and started when Sabetrasekh found a complete copy of her own scientific paper incorporated in an international patent application in the name of Ascendia AB. A patent application, which her supervisor at UiO had been involved with, as he had worked as a private consultant for Ascendia AB in connection with the application. However, Sabetrasekh was not listed as inventor, as UiO was of the opinion that Sabetrasekh’s research did not constitute an invention and was therefore not patentable.
In 2015, Sabetrasekh filed a lawsuit against UiO – and lost. The district court concluded that her work constituted only routine experiments and it was insufficient to consider her co-inventor, even though the work was part of her PhD thesis. Sabetrasekh was represented by the attorney-at-law Sverre Lilleng from the law firm Lynx. (Read more about the case via the links in the bottom of this article).
Sabetrasekh appeals with Zacco’s assistance – and succeeds
In the following appeal, Zacco’s professional IP assistance changed the case substantially. The Court of Appeal concluded that Sabetrasekh is co-inventor of Ascendia’s patents. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal concluded that UiO, as employer, did not take over the invention in accordance with the Employee Inventions Act and consequently Sabetrasekh was not awarded any financial compensation.
According to the Employee Inventions Act, Section 7, the employer has the right to take over employee inventions. In such a case, the employee is entitled to a reasonable compensation. Thus, a key question in the future will be how the employer UiO acquired the right to the employee invention – a question, which will be decided by the Supreme Court. A positive outcome will provide the basis for a reasonable remuneration to the inventor Roya Sabetrasekh and is decided by the Board of Appeal in later court proceedings.
Are you involved in a patent dispute?
Please feel free to contact us for more information about how we can help you with our value-adding services and consulting or read more about our service offering here.
Read more about the case on the web site of the law firm Lynx Law representing Roya Sabetrasekh:
Lynx Advokatfirma DA, Roya Sabetrasekh’s attorney-at-law
Further readings:Back to all news
- EU Trademark applications drop to lowest rate since 201922 March 2023
- New Associate Patent Attorney x 2: Welcome, Markus Engstrand and Tobias Viskers6 March 2023
- The Unified Patent Court and Unitary Patent system officially starts 1st June 2023!17 February 2023
- MetaBirkin Result provides early case law in growing area of NFT infringements15 February 2023
- WTR 1000 2023 ranks Zacco and 19 colleagues7 February 2023
- Zacco welcomes two Digital Brand experts to the team: Alexander Karlsson and Renaud Permezel26 January 2023
- Copyright chaos creates Christmas classic22 December 2022
- Season’s Greetings 202216 December 2022
- Lone Prehn wins Client Choice Awards 2022 for Trademarks in Denmark15 November 2022
- Zacco supports and partners with Star for Life Ukraine28 October 2022