Inventor sues employers for £366m over work on 'high-tech plaster' that made billions

Inventor sues employers for £366m over work on 'high-tech plaster' that made billions The case is set for a six-week trial in 2028 - Bookmark Become an Independent member to bookmark this article Already a member? Log in An inventor who says his work on a high-tech sticking plaster helped net billions for his bosses is suing for up to £366m, demanding a share of the profits. Analytical chemist Dr David Parsons worked for FTSE100-listed Convatec Ltd for more than 30 years, having joined the London-based medical products and technologies company in 1991. Starting out on a yearly salary of just £16,250 and rising to become a company director, Dr Parsons went on to put his name to multiple patents for inventions, which the company used in creating some of its high-tech Aquacel wound dressings. The inventions mainly related to the use of silver in infection-fighting antimicrobial plasters and dressings, which are said to have netted the company billions. Having left in 2023, Dr Parsons, of Hoylake, Merseyside, is now suing for compensation of up to £366m at the High Court, claiming his work created an "outstanding" benefit for his employer. But Convatec is fighting the claim, which reached the Court of Appeal this week as the two sides argued over the issues to be determined when it reaches trial before the High Court in 2028. Setting out the background to the dispute, Dr Parsons' barrister Patrick Green KC said the case revolved around seven "patent families" in which he is named either solely or jointly. "During his employment, Dr Parsons made a number of inventions, upon which patents have been granted and which, as between Dr Parsons and Convatec, belong to Convatec and have led to a succession of successful products made by Convatec, pleaded to have generated billions of dollars," he told the court. "He pleads to benefit from the products which rely upon the patents and inventions, as being at ‘at high profit margins and very high rates of return on the costs of making the underlying inventions'." Much of Dr Parsons' work related to the use of silver in the company's "hugely successful" Aquacel line of infection-fighting dressings for chronic wounds. He is suing for compensation under Section 40 of the Patents Act 1977 on the basis that the patents to which his name is attached - considered individually or collectively - created an "outstanding" benefit for his employer. Although Dr Parsons' claim has not yet been quantified, Mr Justice Richards giving judgment on an earlier stage of the dispute said his claim to 10 to 15 per cent of the value of sales of the products could mean his claim "could be worth up to £366m." The case is set for a six-week trial in 2028, with issues surrounding what work was done by Dr Parsons and how it benefitted the company due to be decided. However, as well as questioning the exact impact of his work, Convatec argues that the effect of the patents he is named on have to be considered "outstanding" individually - rather than collectively - in order for compensation to be due. The company says only a "humdinger" one-off invention can result in compensation to an employee, as opposed to a long list of "run-of-the-mill" inventions considered collectively. The case went before a High Court judge earlier this year, with Dr Parsons asking for that part of Convatec's defence to be struck out, arguing that it is plainly wrong that his work cannot be considered collectively. But after High Court judge Mr Justice Mellor declined to make a ruling on the issue, putting it off until the full trial of the claim in 2028, the case went on to the Court of Appeal this week. In court, Dr Parsons' barrister Mr Green argued that Mr Justice Mellor was wrong not to decide the point there and then, and should have struck out that part of Convatec's defence. "In short, the learned judge was wrong not to decide the point and to leave it hanging in the air, to be argued all over again at trial," said Mr Green. "Dr Parsons’s application should have been both decided and granted, not deferred to be argued all over again at a trial. Dr Parsons invites the court so to order. "There was only one answer as a matter of law and the judge should not have let a plea that was bound to fail proceed to trial – especially having heard argument upon it and a hearing at which the application was listed to be determined. "Dr Parsons, therefore, asks this court to grant him permission to appeal, to allow the appeal and to grant the application and strike out those passages in Convatec’s defence." But quoting the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in Parliament when the Patents Act was discussed in the 1970s, Convatec barrister Brian Nicholson KC said compensation is due only for the most exceptional inventions. "What is required in order for an employee to be entitled to compensation is a 'humdinger' of a winner of an invention of the sort which 'may revolutionise a company or perhaps even a whole industry', as distinct from 'run-of-the-mill inventions which are patented by the thousand every year'," he said. He said that if the law allowed pieces of work to be considered collectively, as opposed to individually, it would unfairly favour long-serving employees. "By remaining with the same employer, such employees could consistently contribute in ‘run-of-the-mill’ ways to the inventive activities of a business and its lead products over decades, which collectively might add up to an outstanding benefit," he said. "They would be favoured over employees who moved to a new employer, thus discouraging employees from moving between companies. "The appellant’s approach would constitute a significant disincentive to the long-term retention of employees. "Employers would have strong incentives to artificially limit employees’ periods of employment in the United Kingdom for fear that long-term employment could expose the employer to an ‘aggregated’ Section 40 claim that could never have been advanced if precisely the same development was undertaken, but the employees working on the development process were turned over every few years. "Most other jurisdictions do not have remotely equivalent provisions. If the appellant is right, it provides a strong reason to avoid conducting substantial research and development in the UK. "It is precisely the appellant’s construction that leads to absurdity. In industries where very successful products embody a large number of patented inventions, compensation would now be awarded to many inventors involved in product development simply because each has contributed some ‘run-of-the-mill’ patents over a number of years. "That would be the case, on the appellant’s construction, even though no individual invention/patent was particularly special, and no single invention/patent caused the huge success of the product, or an outstanding benefit to the employer." Judgment in the appeal before Lady Justice Asplin, Lord Justice Baker and Lord Justice Arnold is likely to be reserved until a later date. The full trial of Mr Parsons' compensation claim is due to go before the High Court early in 2028. [Image text:] Aquacel" Extra 5cmx5cm/2x2 convate Mawua.turedfor Convaceclnc, Grsboro.NC 27409 USA ConvaTec Limited First Avenue.DeesideIndusral P Hydrofib Deeside.Flintshire.CH5.2NU.UK ECREPUNOMEDICA Aaholmvej1 4320LEIRE 27970036 MDH 2022Conv ADX X STERILER 1738296V1 684551