Scally v Southern Health and Social Services

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

BUSINESS LAW1
Case Study
Issue
 Whether the Maître d’ had any claims against the restaurant and if so what were those
potential claims.
 Whether there would have been any difference if the employment agreement was a work
for hire or for jointly owned or any acquisition of an intellectual property. If so what
would be the difference between those three and what impact would such have on the
intellectual property.
 Whether there was any difference if the app had been created and along with such
developed prior to or after the employment agreements. If such had been the case then
would the Maître d’ control the rights to that particular app regardless of when such had
been invented.
 Would it make a difference if it had been signed by the Maître d’ through an agreement
and the ownership being transferred to Sally.
Rule
The terms and conditions in an employment contract are considered to be essential and
significant since such protects the employees as well as the employers and regulates or governs
their behavior in the workplace. It is essential as all the companies policies are in compliance
with the employment contract as well as the employer’s disciplinary code which forms a part of
the employment. It can be observed from the case of Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough)
Ltd [1982] ICR 693. Therefore, if an employer fails to perform in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the employment agreement then the employer would constitute a breach. It can be

BUSINESS LAW2
understood from the case of Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board [1992] 1 AC
294.
A patent is considered to be an invention which provides with the grant of a property
right to the inventor. Patents are considered to be granted for new useful and non-obvious
inventions, which would be granted for twenty years from the date of filing date of the
application for patent, and it would also provide with the right to exclude others from trying to
exploit the invention during such time period. It can be understood from the case of LabCorp v.
Metabolite, Inc., 548 U.S. 124 (2006). If there has been any kind of patent infringement then
such would be include costs and court filing fees which would be related to litigation expenses.
The patent owner also has the right to stop the infringer from using and continuing infringing the
patented products under the United States Code Title 35 – Patents. It can be observed from the
case of Schillinger v. United States, 155 U.S. 163 (1894). A patent is considered to be a
transferrable property and such can be transferred from an original patentee to any other
individual by assignment or through the operation of law.
It is considered to be a general rule that an employer would own the rights for intellectual
property of all the employees during the course of their employment. However, such would not
be the case if the employee has created such other than their course of employment. Under the
copyright law if the work made for hire is a work which would be subjected to copyright as such
has been created by an employee and it needs to be in writing.