without. prejudice sayy 2008 Staking the correct patent ownership claim early DANIE DOHMEN Galion Manufcturing (Pry) Le sought an orks, terms of 28 of che Parents Act (57 of 1958), tat Set Poin Industral Technelogy (ey) Led assign wo chm South Aftan potent no 984753 ens! Discharge Ral Hoppee’ The invenion in dopa concerns. wie doo hopper which is ‘xtensvely nen South African mining ‘The central tae wat wheter or ae Galizn'stwo employees, Thorbuma an Skelton, devied the invention of the patent or whether the cial agplicae Chase, was the sole inventor and was, ther ended wo apy for regisraon of the patent. These evens cacued berween 1995 and 199T and ascan be expect from agate his kin the versions he poriesto wh devs the invention were mally desi ‘As thee was no Sau Asean precedent dealing wih ds imu, che apo sc cuit jcgment in Sano Fre Opes Lats Apis [P05] RECS (Ch) we aezepd whee dhe adel at 326 ns 2-3 “The kof he cei iene irene enc Be et rt cao ae id who dvi... The ca re comcerna with of salty orinsentens: merely ith he ones dsb.” ‘The dispute was factual one, Galton bore the ons and could only sx ood if itstifed the cout on a preponderance of probes cha its ver son was ue and accurate and theteineaccepeabl, and thatthe othe ver son advanced by the defendant was fale ce mibtaken and had ta be ejecta ‘The court noted that in deciding the primary tse of who devise the invention of the patent, i¢hal to be home in mind thatthe wimeses were tesiffing about events which tock place between 10 and 12 yeas previ- ‘ously, a very lng time fora memory to he reliable and sccurate even if there were no motive to misrepresent the ics ‘As the dpute involved pute rights which ccukl be worth a great deal ‘of money the cour flit woul have been ave to accept that the man wit reser dk not havea motive toat lst colour their evidence xo that woul he conser move favoarly For these teats Southood J was ofthe view thatthe documentary evidence and the problilies played a. very lnyporene tole in asiing che court to make findings ato the wines? credibility and relay. He stated thatthe documentary evience was the most abjectve means of determining ‘whether the wimes:er could be believe and what they ssid wie asc race, Depending upon the cium: szanees he consider the probabil ‘ies equal importance “Accordingly, the background of slleations previo mace by Galion ad i legal ropesentaves riding the invention and ownership ef the trenton were conte portant “There were varices contictons and inconsistencies in Gallons con- duce e was not pombe to reccnile he starements and actions and there -wasno explanation forthe contradic- sions an inconsistencies which went tothe hear ofthe dispute, ‘Southwood found chat all ds factors showed that Gallons evidence (hae of Thorburn apd Skelton) was unreliable and could nat be aceapted at face vale. This was exacethatsl by the probubltes arising cut of Galicn’ failure to take action when appraised of che existence of the ‘patent, and by the action which it did ake. Agiinst these inconsistencies, contradictions and improbublites, (Chau evidence on the key fue was not shown to he une. His evi dence was further corroborated and there wasimporant circumstantial evi- dence which supported his version, ‘There was thus no bass for finding that Galton version was tue and sccurate and Crass version was ile and had t be rejected. Galton oid otdicharge the onus testing on ican is clam was dimisied The patent retained inthe name of Ser Point “The matter emphasises the impontance of accurate and detailed recon! keeping of any invention process, Adlitonally if there is any dispute resauding inventorihip or osmership of an inventcn, it i important 9 ensue that the facts which ate relied on and communicated ate accurate and comect withour inconsistencies and contradictions, Las, stim to aim omnenhip shouldbe taken sooner rather than later In shor, in parent ownership dipuees, stake the comeet claim eatly. ® ‘ohmen [Dokmen isa partner of Adams & Adams