Andrew Cooke v Watermist Limited, Patents Court (Chancery Division), High Court of Justice, London  EWHC 125 (Pat)
Mr Justice Arnold of the Patents Court, has dismissed the appellant’s, Mr Cooke, appeal against a decision of Phil Thorpe acting for the Comptroller-General of Patents, that Mr Cooke was entitled to co-inventorship of, and co-entitlement to, UK Patent No. 2458698 concerning a hose reel unit, which was granted to Watermist Limited (“Watermist”).
Although Mr Cooke’s pleaded case was one of the co-inventorship, his evidence was that he had devised the core inventive concept (the idea of including a pump and motor for pressurising the hose reel inside the wall-mounted cabinet). Watermist’s case was that Mr Bridgman, the named inventor, had devised the inventive concept.
Mr Cooke’s appeal turned on two points – (i) that the hearing officer erred in law by making impermissible resort to the burden of proof, and (ii) that the hearing officer’s conclusions were contrary to the evidence. The court did not accept either ground of appeal.