FORMER CONVATEC INVENTOR SUES FIRM FOR £366M OVER PATENTS

Dr David Parsons, an analytical chemist who worked for Convatec Ltd for more than 30 years, is suing his former employer for compensation of up to £366m at the High Court, according to court proceedings reported this week. Dr Parsons, of Hoylake, Merseyside, joined the London-based medical products company in 1991 on a starting salary of £16,250 and later became a company director. He is named on multiple patents covering the use of silver in antimicrobial wound dressings, which Convatec used in its Aquacel product range. Dr Parsons left the company in 2023 and is bringing the claim under Section 40 of the Patents Act 1977, which allows employees to seek compensation where a patent has provided their employer with an "outstanding" benefit. Convatec is contesting the claim.

The dispute reached the Court of Appeal this week, where the two sides argued over which issues should be determined when the case goes to trial before the High Court in 2028. Dr Parsons' barrister, Patrick Green KC, told the court the case concerns seven "patent families" on which Dr Parsons is named as sole or joint inventor. He said the patents, which belong to Convatec under the terms of Dr Parsons' employment, led to a succession of products that have generated billions of dollars in revenue. Green said Dr Parsons' legal team argues the products built on these patents operate at high profit margins and very high rates of return relative to the cost of developing the underlying inventions. Much of the disputed work relates to the Aquacel line of dressings for chronic wounds.

The case will proceed to a full trial at the High Court in 2028, where judges will determine whether Dr Parsons' contribution meets the legal threshold for compensation under the Patents Act. Convatec, which is listed on the FTSE 100, continues to dispute the claim. No figure has yet been agreed or awarded, and the Court of Appeal hearing this week addressed only the scope of issues to be examined at trial rather than the merits of the claim itself.