High Court ordered disclosure of patent discussions about PATeye and Dataeye, intelligent road-marking cats eyes providing real time data on road usage and road conditions. Investors in Christchurch-based Solar Bright allege Patrick and Nicola Martin misrepresented patent ownership.
In 2019, Solar Bright Ltd went into liquidation. Investors had put in some $2.3 million to commercialise the PATeye and Dataeye products. Founders Patrick and Nicola Martin were ordered to return intellectual property rights improperly stripped out of the company. Arguments then followed over whether Solar Bright actually controlled patent rights the Martins had supposedly hijacked. Meanwhile, Solar Bright liquidators are making regular payments to keep patent registration alive.
In the High Court, the Martins resisted investors efforts to scrutinise details of the Martins March 2017 discussions with patent attorneys over details of Dataeye patent registration. They said these discussions were private and legally privileged. Associate judge Lester ordered disclosure. Legal privilege can be overridden on evidence of fraud or sharp practice. Public presentations to investors highlighting Solar Bright’s control of patent rights at a time when patents were filed in the name of Mr Martin personally were evidence of sharp practice, Judge Lester ruled.
re Solar Bright Ltd – High Court (12.02.21)
21.030