UK: Inventor Compensation Arrives In The UK

Last Updated: 20 March 2009
Article by Ann Bevitt and Thomas P. Broadhurst

A recent judgment of the Patents Court in the High Court of Justice in England broke new ground by clarifying when UK inventors can share in the benefits of a patent obtained by their employers.

Mr. Justice Floyd handed down his judgment in the landmark case Kelly and Chiu v GE Healthcare1 on 11 February in which the Patents Court awarded the two inventors £1.5 million as their share of the benefit derived from the two patented families for inventions related to a blockbuster radiopharmaceutical heart imaging agent.

The case is the first UK decision of its kind. Employee inventors in the UK have not previously been awarded compensation by the courts for their patents and inventions with the few disputes between employee inventors and their employers settling before court. To qualify for this compensation UK, employee inventors have to be either wholly or mainly employed in the UK, or if they have no main place of employment be employed by an employer that has a UK business to which they are attached.

The relevant law is relatively old but, crucially, was previously untested in the courts. The UK Patents Act 1977 provides compensation is payable to an employee inventor when the invention/patent is of outstanding benefit to the employer and it is found to be just that the employee should receive an award. The statute sets out the factors to consider in determining the fair share of that benefit due to the UK employee inventor.

As there had been no decided cases, much was not clear. In particular, it was unclear what scale of benefit to an employer would qualify as an outstanding benefit entitling the inventor to compensation. It was also unclear what level of compensation the employee should receive in such circumstances. GE Healthcare is both a guide of the scale of the required benefit to the employer and the amount of compensation from that benefit a UK employee inventor may receive.

The claimants, Drs. Kelly and Chui, were the UK employee inventors. They were research scientists employed by Amersham International PLC2 in the 1980s. They investigated and synthesised radiopharmaceutical imaging agents, one of which became the highly successful heart defect diagnostic, Myoview.

Myoview successfully launched in the UK and Japan in 1994 followed by the United States in 1996. Myoview was a great success. It became a blockbuster product for Amersham. Myoview generated sales through to 2007 in excess of £1.3 billion with a very high profit margin, the precise figures for which were provided as confidential information to the court but are not revealed in the public judgment.

Two patent families resulted from the work3 of Kelly and Chui and other inventors claiming priorities from 1987 and 1988 respectively. Although the two patent families' members began to expire last year and this year, 2009, in the U.S. patent protection continues until February 2010.

The Patents Court judge, Mr. Justice Floyd, having determined that Drs Kelly and Chui were inventors of the patents belonging to their employer, Amersham, then turned to the central and contested question whether the patents were of outstanding benefit to their employer. He held the correct approach to determine "outstanding benefit" is first to ask - was the patent a cause of some benefit? If it was, the next question is how much of the total benefit can be attributed to the patent (which may raise difficult questions of apportioning benefit from multiple causes). Finally, the court has to decide whether that benefit due to the patent was outstanding. He commented that outstanding benefit means more than significant and rather "something special" or "out of the ordinary". It has to be of benefit greater than one would normally expect to arise from the employees' work.

By reason of statute it also had to be just to make the award. Mr Justice Floyd said it was not desirable or sensible for the court to categorise when an award may be unjust, reserving that discretion to the court, which would recognise situations in which it would be unjust to make an award when they arise.

The judge considered the statutory guidance on the amount of compensation. He held that the factors should place the employee inventor somewhere midway between two poles, neither leaving the employee badly off by limiting the compensation available simply to any loss or damage that employee had suffered (he rejected the employer's arguments to confine "compensation" to a narrow definition meaning monetary recompense for someone who has suffered loss or damage), nor placing the employee inventor in too strong a position by holding he should be rewarded as highly as an external patentee licensing his patent back to the employer. However, this was strong guidance to himself to be less generous than in the circumstances of universities licensing the use and exploration of an invention in a patent application for "inventor"-level royalties as their financial return (a very common practice).

Mr Justice Floyd attempted to assess what the benefits of the patents had been to Amersham. The patents to be included in this analysis were all the worldwide patent family members and not just the UK patents. He did this by assuming that Myoview would have gone ahead into production and sale even if it were unprotected by any patents. He compared an estimate of how Myoview would have performed without patents (i.e., without exclusivity in key markets) with the actual profits with the patents. He did this by accepting that regulatory data exclusivity (RDE) prevented generic competition until RDE expired, with a year added on as the time for the processing of a "piggy back" application. RDE protection for Myoview expired early in 2001/2002 in the U.S., and in reality the exclusivity conferred by the patents was notionally worthless until then because of the equivalent exclusivity conferred by RDE.

The judge held, however, that after this the patents were of outstanding benefit to Amersham because they protected Amersham's business against generic competition post‑RDE expiry that would have reduced profits after the expiry of RDE. He described the position Amersham would have faced following the expiry of the RDE in 2001/2002, had the patents not existed, as a crisis because the exclusivity helped Amersham maintain its core Myoview business. A second reason the judge felt that the patents were of outstanding benefit to Amersham was because they carried out two major corporate deals, namely a joint venture with Sumitomo and the acquisition of Nycomed, and those would not have been achieved on as favorable terms as they were, or even might not have occurred, if Myoview had been an unpatented product. The Sumitomo and Nycomed deals had significantly contributed to the overall success of Amersham.

A significant problem with this part of the judgment for all companies in the pharmaceutical and biotech sectors is that often their patent estates will confer exclusivity against generic competition for a number of years post‑RDE expiry, and the patent estate, taken together with other product-related data, often enables companies in the sector to do partnering and collaboration deals. So the judge was describing the norm for the benefit from a patent estate in the sector, albeit in this case being the two patent families and not a not a large number of patents, almost failing the test that "outstanding benefit" had to be something "out of the ordinary".

Mr Justice Floyd went on to hold that in the case it was just to make an award to the UK inventor employees and went on to value the patents' benefit. He decided that in view of Myoview's overall sales, in the absence of patent protection, generic competition would have caused Myoview's price to drop by at least 10% on half of its sales in the relevant years post-RDE and so this would have reduced Amersham's revenues from Myoview by £50 million. He described this figure as "the absolute rock bottom figure for the benefit from the patents". In the pharmaceutical sector generally prices fall by much more than 10% once there is patent expiry and generic competition status, and there is a massive loss of market share in all key markets. In our view trying to quantify the benefit by reference to price reduction and loss of market share is not an appropriate methodology, but the judge ended up there by reason of his earlier approach.

The judge then considered the factors set out in the statute for assessing the share of that benefit of £50 million due to the claimant employee inventors. To assess the respective contribution of the parties the court considered the research leading to the production and sales of Myoview from the making of the inventions through to the product development (animal and clinical trials, development phase, approvals, manufacturing, and distribution) and set out Amersham's considerable contributions to the development stages. He considered the employees had not yet received recognition for making an invention of outstanding benefit; that these employees' effort and skill was high; and that non-inventors had not contributed significantly. The contributions made by Amersham as the employer to the success of the inventions were explored. Factors favouring the employer were that Amersham gave the inventors the opportunity, provided well-executed and sophisticated downstream work, developed the U.S. market, and accepted the risk for the project overall. The two factors favouring the employee inventors were that they were not carrying out routine operations, as their work involved significant thought and creativity; and that the overall research and development costs for Myoview were extremely small, being only £2.4 million, compared to Myoview's sales and the R&D costs of comparable products.

Having examined the competing views on the employees' fair share of the benefits of patents Mr Justice Floyd decided that the inventors should receive one-off final awards of 3%4 of the £50 million benefit, or £1.5 million. This total was split in accordance with the inventors' respective contributions with two thirds (£1 million) going to Dr Kelly and a third (£0.5 million) going to Dr Chui. The total award represents about 0.1% of Myoview turnover, or only three days' profits.

This judgment has broken new ground but it seems to us wrong as to the test for "outstanding benefit" in the pharmaceutical and biotech sectors and to the quantification of that benefit. If applied, it puts many companies at risk of these sorts of claims. It is not being appealed, as neither side sought leave to appeal.

This landmark decision means that the UK joins other countries such as Germany and Japan in securing benefits for employee inventors. For employers, the judgment should at the very least prompt a review of their standard contractual arrangements with UK inventor employees. In particular, employers may want to consider whether they build into UK inventor employees' terms and conditions provisions regarding their reward in relation to inventions of outstanding benefit to them. For example, employers could include a contractual framework concerning when and how they would determine whether their UK employees' inventions constitute an outstanding benefit and, if so, how their fair share of that benefit would be assessed. However, there is a risk that such contractual arrangements, if entered into on commencement of employment, could be declared unenforceable as being in breach of section 42(2) of the 1977 Act (insofar as they diminish employees' rights in inventions made by employees after the date of the contract or in or under patents for such inventions) or void as being in breach of public policy. One possible way of avoiding the application of section 42(2) is for employers to enter into such contractual arrangements after the inventions have been made.


1.(1) James Duncan Kelly and (2) Kwok Wai Chiu v GE Healthcare Limited [2009] EWHC 181 (Pat)

2.Amersham was later taken over by General Electric Company and renamed GE Healthcare but this corporate change had no impact on this case; Amersham is the relevant entity and it continued to exist.

3.One of the two patent families in addition had two other co-inventors who were not employees but were academics from Cardiff University and Keele University. A co-inventor of both patent families, Dr Latham, was another employee of Amersham. Dr Latham took no part in these proceedings.

4.This level of "inventor royalties" on the total sales is common in university licensing deals but note that 3% is a percentage not of total sales but of the very conservatively estimated benefit of the patents of £50 million. Cardiff and Keele Universities, the employers of the two academic co-inventors of one the patents, were in fact paid royalties of roughly 0.5% of Myoview sales.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Ann Bevitt
In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions