Inventor seeks up to £366m from Convatec over wound dressing patents
Inventor Dr David Parsons is suing his former employer, medical products firm Convatec, for up to £366 million, arguing that his patented work on antimicrobial wound dressings generated exceptional value for the company. The dispute matters because it tests when an employee inventor can claim compensation for inventions made during employment.
Parsons worked at Convatec for more than 30 years and is named on seven patent families, many linked to the use of silver in Aquacel wound dressings. He seeks 10 to 15 per cent of the products’ sales value under the Patents Act 1977; Convatec disputes the claim and says the patents should be assessed individually. The Court of Appeal is considering a preliminary legal issue, while a six-week High Court trial is scheduled for 2028.
- David Parsons is seeking up to £366 million from Convatec.
- His patents relate to silver-based antimicrobial wound dressings.
- A full High Court trial is set for 2028.
New here? Start with this
Convatec is a medical products company that makes Aquacel wound dressings, including versions that use silver to help limit infection. Dr David Parsons worked for the company for more than 30 years and is named on patents covering technologies used in some of its dressings.
UK law allows an employee inventor to seek compensation if an invention has brought their employer an exceptional benefit. The dispute concerns how that test applies to inventions developed as part of a job, and how any compensation should be assessed.
The case could help clarify when employee inventors can claim a share of the value created by their patented work. It also raises questions about whether related patents should be considered together or one by one.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Parsons’s strongest case is that his patented work may have created exceptional value for Convatec, and that the Patents Act allows employee inventors to receive compensation where an invention’s benefit to an employer is outstanding. A share of the relevant sales, he could argue, would recognise the contribution behind commercially successful wound dressings and provide a meaningful incentive for innovation by employees.
The case against
Convatec’s strongest case is that the claim should be judged patent by patent, rather than treating sales across products as a basis for a broad percentage award. It can argue that the court must establish which inventions, if any, delivered exceptional benefit to the company and what compensation fairly reflects their individual contribution, while respecting the terms of employment and the statutory test.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Inventor who claims his work on sticking plaster helped net ‘billions’ for his bosses is suing his former employer for £366m in compensation”.