- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Parsons v Convatec Ltd
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant, an analytical chemist formerly employed by Company A, claimed compensation under section 40 of the Patents Act 1977 for inventions protected by seven patent families. The alleged products generated estimated global sales of approximately $3.2 billion, and the claim was valued at up to £366 million. Company A disputed the claim. [1][2]
The claim was issued in September 2022 and listed for a 37-day trial in February 2028. The first appeal concerned whether benefits from multiple inventions or patents could be aggregated under section 40(1). The second concerned whether the Appellant’s financial position had to be considered when approving costs budgets under section 106(1). [1][3]
The first appeal followed the refusal of an application to strike out parts of Company A’s Defence. The second followed a decision that section 106 did not apply to costs budgeting and the rejection of proposed restrictions on Company A’s costs budget. [4][5][6][7]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the court may consider the aggregate benefit of more than one invention or patent when determining “outstanding benefit” under section 40(1) of the Patents Act 1977. [8][9][10]
- Whether section 106(1) applies when the court approves costs budgets and, if so, how the employee’s financial position should affect that exercise. [8][11][12]
- Whether the first-instance judge was entitled to defer determination of the section 40 interpretation issue until trial. [13][14]
- Whether an earlier order made by a single Court of Appeal judge in Shanks v Unilever was binding. [15][16][17]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The court could consider the benefit of multiple inventions, patents, or combinations collectively under section 40(1). [18][19][20]
- The section 40 issue was a pure question of law that should have been decided before trial to avoid unnecessary evidence, costs, and argument. [21][22][23]
- Section 106(1) required the court to consider the Appellant’s limited financial resources when approving Company A’s costs budget. [24][25]
- Without a restriction on Company A’s budget, insurance premiums or litigation funding costs could substantially reduce or eliminate any recovery, even if the claim succeeded. [26][27]
Respondent’s Arguments
- The aggregate benefit of multiple inventions or patents could not establish outstanding benefit unless the inventions or patents were individually of outstanding benefit. [28][29][30]
- The first-instance judge was entitled to defer the statutory issue as a matter of case management. [31][14]
- Section 106 did not apply to costs budgeting, and the earlier order in Shanks v Unilever supported that interpretation. [32][33]
- If section 106 applied, the judge was entitled to reject the proposed restrictions on Company A’s costs budget. [33][34]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| PACCAR Inc v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28 | Statutory interpretation focuses on statutory words, purpose, context, and avoidance of absurd results. | Used as the framework for assessing the competing interpretations of sections 40(1) and 106(1). [35][36][37][38] |
| Spath Holme [2001] 2 AC 349 | The court must identify the meaning borne by statutory words in their particular context. | Cited as part of the general approach to statutory interpretation. [39] |
| Rossendale Borough Council v Hurstwood Properties (A) Ltd [2022] AC 690 | Statutory purpose is central to interpretation. | Supported the purposive approach adopted by the Court. [40] |
| R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] 2 AC 687 | Legislation should be interpreted to give effect to Parliament’s purpose in its statutory and historical context. | Reinforced the Court’s purposive analysis. [40][41] |
| Bloomsbury International Ltd v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2011] 1 WLR 1546 | Statutory purpose and scheme provide the framework for construction. | Supported consideration of the wider scheme of the 1977 Act. [40][42][43] |
| Charter Reinsurance Co Ltd v Fagan [1997] AC 313 | “Natural meaning” is not necessarily the correct starting point before purpose and scheme are identified. | Supported the Court’s refusal to decide the issue solely from isolated statutory wording. [43][44] |
| R (Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] AC 255 | The statutory text and context are primary; explanatory materials have a secondary role. | Confirmed the interpretive method applied to the 1977 Act. [45] |
| R v McCool [2018] 1 WLR 2431 | Courts should avoid absurd or unworkable statutory constructions unless Parliament’s words clearly require them. | Informed the assessment of the practical consequences of Company A’s interpretation of section 40(1). [37][38] |
| Broughton v Kop Football (Cayman) Limited [2012] EWCA Civ 1743 | Appellate interference with discretionary case-management decisions is limited. | Recognised the restraint normally applicable to reviewing case-management decisions. [14] |
| Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management Ltd (No 2) [2014] UKSC 64 | Approved the limited grounds for appellate interference with discretion. | Considered in relation to the first-instance judge’s case-management decision. [14] |
| Ward v Rai [2026] EWCA Civ 816 | Provides further reasons for appellate caution when reviewing discretionary decisions. | Supported the general principles governing appellate review. [14] |
| Frank v Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda [2022] UKPC 25 | A court should decide a pure legal issue where it has the necessary material and the parties have had an opportunity to argue it. | Applied to require determination of the section 40(1) issue before trial. [46][47] |
| Easyair Ltd (trading as Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch) | The court should “grasp the nettle” and decide a pure legal issue suitable for determination at an early stage. | Supported allowing the first appeal and deciding the statutory issue immediately. [46][47] |
| Kelly v GE Healthcare Ltd [2009] EWHC 181 (Pat) | Joint employee inventors may claim compensation for an invention of outstanding benefit. | Supported the conclusion that singular statutory language may include the plural, but did not resolve aggregation of benefits. [48][49] |
| Various Shared Appreciation Mortgage Borrowers v BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages) No 1 plc [2022] EWHC 2594 (Ch) | Costs budgets must be reasonable and proportionate, assessed by phase and within a permissible range. | Provided the principal summary of costs-budgeting principles. [50][51][52][53] |
| Various Claimants v Scott Fowler Solicitors [2018] EWHC 1891 (Ch) | Costs budgeting is not a detailed assessment and comparison with another budget is not determinative. | Supported the objective, range-based approach to costs budgeting. [54][55][56] |
| Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWHC 209 (QB) | Reasonableness and proportionality in costs budgeting are assessed objectively. | Cited in the summary of costs-budgeting principles. [54] |
| Discovery Land Company v Axis Specialty Europe [2021] EWHC 2146 (Comm) | The court should allow flexibility and need not approve only the lowest reasonable expenditure. | Supported a flexible approach to determining Company A’s budget. [56][57] |
| Harrison v University Hospitals NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 792 | Departure from an approved budget requires good reason, preserving costs certainty. | Explained the significance of costs budgeting and the effect of later departures. [58][59][60] |
| Shanks v Unilever [2019] UKSC 45 | Concerned employee-inventor compensation and a prior costs-protection order. | The Court considered both the earlier procedural order and the reported Supreme Court compensation award. [61][62][63] |
| Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718 | Identifies exceptions to the general rule that Court of Appeal decisions bind later constitutions. | Used in analysing whether a single judge’s incidental order was binding. [16][17] |
| Cave v Robinson Jarvis & Rolf [2001] EWCA Civ 245 | The authority of a decision depends on the nature of the judicial exercise, including the summary nature of the procedure and brevity of argument. | Supported the conclusion that the earlier single-judge order was not binding. [64][65][66] |
| Lahey v Pirelli Tyres Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 91 | A costs judge is bound by an earlier order concerning incidence and basis of assessment. | Supported the distinction between deciding liability for costs and assessing their amount. [67] |
| O’Beirne v Hudson [2010] EWCA Civ 52 | Confirmed the binding effect of an earlier costs order on later assessment. | Considered with Lahey in interpreting section 106(1). [67] |
| Coventry v Lawrence [2015] UKSC 50 | The relevant costs rules contain a closed list of factors for assessing reasonable and proportionate costs. | Did not prevent financial circumstances being considered under section 106(1). [68][69] |
| Salts Healthcare Ltd v Pelican Healthcare Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 93 | Predictable costs exposure can promote access to justice for parties with limited means. | Applied by analogy to employee compensation claims under section 40. [70] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that the first-instance judge should have decided the section 40(1) issue because it was a self-contained question of law, did not depend on factual findings, and could materially reduce the evidence and costs required for trial. [22][71][23][72]
The singular wording of section 40(1) included the plural, but that alone did not resolve whether benefits could be aggregated. The Court therefore examined the Act’s purpose, context, and practical consequences. [73][48][74][49]
The Court rejected Company A’s proposed one-to-one correspondence between inventions and patents. A single patent may cover several inventions; a patent family may contain several patents protecting one invention; and patents may have overlapping or complementary scopes. Requiring the benefits to be disentangled could be irrational and unworkable. [75][76][77][78][79][80]
The Court also rejected arguments based on employee retention, the location of research industries, and the exceptional nature of the statutory remedy. Those matters did not justify a bright-line prohibition on aggregation. The Court accepted that a prohibition could allow employers to avoid liability by atomising inventions or patents. [81][82][83][84][85][86]
Accordingly, the Court concluded that section 40(1) permits reliance on the aggregate benefit of more than one invention or patent. Whether aggregation is appropriate in this case remains an evaluative issue for the trial judge. [87][88][89]
On section 106(1), the Court held that “determining … what costs … to award” includes each step on the critical path to deciding the amount of costs, including approval of costs budgets. The statutory language and section 106(2) supported that interpretation. [90][67][91][92][93][94]
The Court rejected the argument that financial circumstances could be considered only when costs were finally awarded. Future circumstances can be addressed through the “good reason” mechanism, and considering financial position at budgeting does not necessarily constitute a pre-emptive costs order. [95][96][97]
The Court held that the earlier single-judge order in Shanks v Unilever was not binding. Although it was a decision of the Court, it was made by a single judge in incidental proceedings, was capable of reconsideration, was not appealable to the Supreme Court, and involved a brief case-management decision. [98][99][65][24][100][101]
The first-instance judge had correctly considered the Appellant’s limited means, but his discretionary assessment was flawed because it remained affected by his mistaken interpretation of section 106(1) and failed to give sufficient weight to the Appellant’s need for reasonable certainty about his potential costs exposure. [102][103][104]
The Court rejected the Appellant’s first three proposed restrictions but considered that the fourth proposal—a £4 million cap on Company A’s budgeted costs—was fairer, broadly reflected the parties’ differing tax positions, and should permit Company A to defend the claim properly. [105][106][107][108][109][110]
Holding and Implications
Both appeals were allowed. On the first appeal, the relevant parts of Company A’s Re-Amended Defence were ordered to be struck out because aggregation of benefits from multiple inventions or patents is legally permissible under section 40(1). [88]
On the second appeal, section 106(1) was held to apply when costs budgets are approved, and Company A’s budgeted costs were limited to £4 million. [111][112]
The decision leaves the factual question of which combinations of inventions or patents should be aggregated for the trial judge. The Court also expressed concern about the length, cost, and uncertainty of employee-inventor compensation litigation and stated that the legislation requires reconsideration. [89][113][114]
Alert