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.
Further readings:
Back to all news
