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:
Further readings:Back to all news
- EPO’s ten day postal rule abolished2 October 2023
- Zacco ranked as a Top Tier Patent Prosecution firm 2023 by Managing IP10 July 2023
- IAM Patent 2023 – Zacco ranked as a top IP firm, alongside 27 colleagues30 June 2023
- Zacco wins Nordic Firm of the Year 2023 at the Managing IP Awards!22 June 2023
- Hybrid IP Portfolio Management – webinar recording available19 June 2023
- IP Stars 2023 – Eighteen Zacco practitioners ranked as IP Stars by Managing IP22 May 2023
- Redemption notice Zacco A/S shares28 April 2023
- Zacco shortlisted in 11 categories at the Managing IP EMEA Awards 2023!28 April 2023
- Lone Prehn announced as one of the Top 250 Women in IP – 202327 April 2023
- ZACCO A/S – Notice of extraordinary general meeting19 April 2023