How Can an Employer Claim Against Former Employee for Making Similar Patent Applications?
In Acron International Technology Limited v Chan Yiu Wai & Anor HCA 1709/2010 (date of judgment: 25 January 2016), the Court of First Instance delivered the first-ever judgment on section 57(1) of the Patents Ordinance (the “Ordinance”). The Plaintiff succeeded in its claim against one of its former employees who had made a patent application which is similar to a technology developed by the Plaintiff after their termination of employment with the Plaintiff.
Key Facts The Plaintiff is a technology based start-up company incorporated in Hong Kong. The 1st and 2nd Defendants were its former employees. The Defendants tendered their resignations from the Plaintiff on 18 October 2004. Eight days after their resignations, the Defendants jointly filed a patent application in the PRC on 26 November 2004 (the “Defendants’ Patent Application”), which was eventually granted on 7 January 2009.
In fact, before the Defendants’ Patent Application was made, the Plaintiff had already made a patent application with the use of the same technology under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in April 2002 (the “Plaintiff’s PCT Application”) and a standard patent was granted in Hong Kong on 29 May 2009 with the term commencing on 29 April 2002. Thus, the application for the standard patent was made at the time when both Defendants were still employed by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff alleged that the subject matter of the Defendants’ Patent Application (the “Defendants’ Invention”)incorporated the entire or a substantial part of the invention and claims under the Plaintiff’s PCT Application (the “Plaintiff’s Invention”)and made a claim against the Defendants pursuant to section 57(1) of the Ordinance.
The Law and Authority Section 57(1) of the Ordinance provides that an invention made by an employee shall be taken to belong to his employer if (i) it was made in the course of the normal duties of the employee; or (ii) the invention was made in the course of the duties of the employee and, at the time of making the invention, he had a special obligation to further the interests of the employer’s undertaking.
The Court noted that there does not appear to have any Hong Kong authority which has considered the meaning of section 57 of the Ordinance and the leading authority in this regard is the English Court of Appeal judgment in LIFFE Administration and Management v Pinkava  4 AER 981.
Analysis As the Plaintiff’s pleaded case was based on “normal duties” and not “specifically assigned duties”, the Plaintiff must accordingly satisfy the following requirements:
1. The Defendants’ Inventionwas made in the course of the Defendants’ normal duties; and
2. The circumstances were such that an invention might reasonably be expected to result from the carrying out of such duties.
With regard to normal duties, Sir Andrew Morritt in LIFFEheld that the source of an employee’s duty is primarily contractual though some of the terms are implied by law. In respect of the second limb, the Court, citing LIFFE, held that the use of the phrase “an invention” as opposed to “the invention” means that an employer will own any invention made from the carrying out of an employee’s duties if the circumstances are such that an invention might result, i.e. within the reasonable expectation of the employer.
The Defendants’ Normal Duties Before addressing the Defendants’ liabilities, it is important to first identify their normal duties. In considering this issue, the court takes a realistic approach but not in an overly analytical fashion. Ultimately, the question is whether an employee is employed to try and innovate and if he is, the general sort of areas of his innovation duties.
In respect of the 1st Defendant’s duties, the Court held that his normal duties were in the context of an administrator, coordinator and an organiser. As the 1st Defendant was not employed to try to innovate, the Plaintiff’s claim against the 1st Defendant was bound to fail.
As for the 2nd Defendant, the Court accepted the Plaintiff’s evidence that the reason why the Plaintiff hired the 2nd Defendant was because the Plaintiff wanted to further develop the technology and put into practice by utilising the 2nd Defendant’s expertise. The 2nd Defendant was heavily involved in a number of projects related to the technology – she conducted analysis and performed laboratory tests in some of the projects; and was responsible for the experimental set up and implementation and was even the chief coordinator in other projects. As demonstrated by her involvement in the Plaintiff’s work projects and the publication of various articles in academic journals, it was found that the normal duties of the 2nd Defendant involved innovative research and development of the technology. The Court also held that the Defendants’ Invention was made in the course of the 2nd Defendant’s normal duties with the Plaintiff.
Reasonable Expectation The next question is whether the circumstances were such that the Defendants’ Invention might reasonably be expected to result from the carrying out of the 2nd Defendant’s duties. The essence of the test is whether an invention, regardless of whether it is the invention in question or an invention similar to the invention in question, might reasonably be expected from the carrying out of an employee’s duties. It was concluded that the Defendants’ Invention might reasonably be expected to result from the carrying out of the 2nd Defendant’s normal duties. In this premise, the Plaintiff’s claim against the 2nd Defendant succeeded.
Other Noteworthy Issues In addition to the above, there are two issues which are worth to take note:
Nature of the Plaintiffs Business The Plaintiff contended that it was engaged in the business of research and development of patentable and proprietary scientific processes and inventions, which the Defendants denied. In this regard, the Court held that “research and development” is not a necessary requirement to a claim under section 57 of the Ordinance. Nevertheless, the Court will take the nature of the employer’s business into account when identifying the normal duties undertaken by the employees.
Similarities of the Defendants’ Invention and the Plaintiff’s Invention Although the Defendants’ expert had identified a number of differences between the Plaintiff’s Invention and the Defendants’ Invention, the differences were not significant enough to render the Defendants’ Patent Application novel. On the other hand, the Defendants’ expert agreed that there were actually 10 similarities between the Plaintiff’s Invention and the Defendants’ Invention.
Notwithstanding that the Plaintiff’s expert accepted that there were three points which were unique or novel in the Defendants’ Invention, after reviewing the evidence, the Court was of the opinion that the Defendants’ Invention was strikingly similar to the Plaintiff’s Invention, which constituted compelling evidence that the Defendants’ Invention was indeed derived from the Plaintiff’s Invention such that the Defendants’ Invention might reasonably have been expected to result from the carrying out of the normal duties of the 2nd Defendant.
Concluding Remarks The Plaintiff succeeded the claim against the 2nd Defendant but failed the claim against the 1st Defendant. The gist of the difference is due to their different job duties. The 1st Defendant’s duties involved oversight and coordination of the work projects while the 2nd Defendant was involved in innovative research and development of the technology for the Plaintiff. This means that, if an employee’s duty does not include a duty to innovate, it may pose a hurdle to the employer to make a claim against the employee under section 57(1) of the Ordinance. Nevertheless, subject to the terms of the employment agreement, the employer may be able to pursue a claim for breach of contract. As regards the claim for damages, it is noteworthy that no damages and/or account for profits will be allowed where no probative evidence is placed before the court of any damage suffered by the employer.
For enquiries, please contact our Intellectual Property & Technology Department:
IMPORTANT: The law and procedure on this subject are very specialized and complicated. This article is just a very general outline for reference and cannot be relied upon as legal advice in any individual case. If any advice or assistance is needed, please contact our solicitors.
Scan the below QR Code to follow and bind with ONC Lawyers official WeChat account
1. What are cookies?
Cookies are small text files containing small amounts of information which are downloaded and may be stored on any of
your internet enabled devices e.g. your computer, smartphone or tablet - like a memory for a web page.
This means we automatically collect and store the following information about your visit:
The internet domain and IP address from where you access the Service;
The type of browser software and operating system used to access the Service and type of device;
The date and time you access the Service;
if you linked to the Service from another website, the address of that website; and
The pages or links you enter, visit and exit the Service from.
We also use other technologies such as web beacons, tracking URLs or SDKs (software development kits). Web beacons
are small graphic files that contain a unique identifier that allows us to check whether you have accessed certain
content, tracking URLs help us understand where the traffic to our Services comes from, and SDKs are set of programs
and tools that allows for the creation of applications, and work similar to cookies and web beacons. For the
We use the following cookies:
Strictly necessary cookies. These are cookies that are required for the operation of the Service, and include, for
example, cookies that enable you to log into secure areas of the Service. They include features, for example Social
Analytical/performance cookies. These cookies allow us to recognise and count the number of visitors
and to see how visitors move around and use our Services. This helps us to improve
the way our Services work, for example, by ensuring that users are finding what they are looking
for easily. These cookies are also used to help us understand what interests our users,
and measure how effective our advertising is;
Targeting cookies. These cookies record your visit to the Service, the pages you have visited and the
links you have followed. We will use this information to make our Services and any
material displayed on it more relevant to your interests. We may also share this information with third parties
for this purpose; and
Advertising cookies. These cookies will remember your preferences, and in general, that you used the
Service, to tailor advertising to you and your interests. These cookies are also used to limit the
number of times you see an advertisement as well as help measure the effectiveness
Please note that some cookies on the Website and other parts of the Service are managed by third
parties, including, for example, advertising networks, features such as videos,
maps and social media API, and providers of external websites like web traffic
analysis services. The third party cookies we use in our Services, include but are
not limited to:
Google - our Website and Services have embedded Google services/tools, such
as ‘Google Maps’ and ‘Google Analytics’
for better user experience and analytics purposes. For details of
Google cookies usage, please click here.
Google DoubleClick - our Website and Services have embedded Google DoubleClick
for analytics and advertising purpose. For details of Google
DoubleClick cookies usage, please click here.
Facebook - our Website and Services have embedded Facebook API for social
media sharing and advertising purpose. For details of Facebook cookies usage,
please click here.
YouTube - the videos in our Website (except China market site) are hosted in YouTube channel. We embed a unique
YouTube hyperlink to show the video on our Website for advertising purpose. For details
of YouTube cookies, please click here.
Instagram - our Website and Services have embedded Instagram API for social
media sharing and advertising purpose. For details of Instagram cookies usage,
please click here.
3. Manage cookies settings
You can block cookies by activating the setting within your browser that allows you to refuse the setting of all
or some cookies. Please be aware if you use your browser
settings to block all cookies (including essential cookies) you may not be able to access all
or parts of our Services.