Services A-Z     Pricing

Shanks v Unilever: What does this mean for employers’ intellectual property rights?

25 October 2019

After a 13 year legal battle, the Supreme Court has awarded £2m in compensation to a professor for an invention he created during his employment, nearly forty years ago. This ruling poses the question; will Shanks v Unilever open the floodgates to future compensation claims from disgruntled employees?

Background of the case

During his employment with Unilever UK Central Resources Ltd (“CRL”), Professor Shanks developed and created the technology now found in most glucose testing products. In 1982, with the use of his daughter’s toy microscope kit, Professor Shanks created his first prototype of the electrochemical capillary device (“ECFD”), which has gone on to be used by many diabetics as a means for monitoring their condition. As was accepted by Professor Shanks, the intellectual property (“IP”) rights to his invention belonged to CRL under the Patent Act 1977 (“Act”), as it had been created during the course of his normal employee duties.

The IP rights in the ECFD were later assigned to the wider company group, Unilever plc (“Unilever”), who filed successful patent applications across the globe. Through the mass-licensing of its IP rights over the invention, Unilever went on to generate £24.55m in total earnings.

After witnessing the success that his invention brought to Unilever, Professor Shanks decided to bring a claim for compensation under the Act on the basis that the patent protecting his invention had been of ‘outstanding benefit’ to his employer, and of him being entitled to a fair share of the profits. After a sea of unsuccessful appeals, the Supreme Court has now ruled in favour of Professor Shanks, and has granted him £2m in compensation.

Outstanding Benefit

The court in this instance found that ‘outstanding benefit’ means ‘exceptional or such as to stand out’ in relation to the benefit received by an employer from a patent. In measuring whether Professor Spark’s patented ECFD invention reached this threshold, the Supreme Court looked at two key issues; what amounts to an ‘outstanding benefit’ and how to assess the fair share owed to Professor Shanks.

Part of Unilever’s argument rested on the fact that the financial contributions the patent made to the Unilever group were insignificant compared to the group’s overall profitability. The £24.55m in profits earned from the patent was not a crucial stream of income for the group. Interestingly however, whilst acknowledging that regard should be had to the size and nature of a business, the court firmly held that comparing the revenue generated from the patent to the overall profit of the group should be disregarded. It was instead concluded that in contrast to other inventions protected by patents of the group, the ECFD had made a significant contribution to the group’s profits. In addition, the court noted that the benefit received from the patent derived from the licensing of the invention itself and not, for example, as a result of Unilever’s market presence skill in securing favourable licence fees.

Secondly, in assessing the fair share owed to Professor Shanks, the court looked at various factors, which resulted in £2m in compensation being granted, 5% of the profits earned by Unilever.

Implications for Employers

The first successful claim since the Act’s introduction was the case of Kelly v Healthcare Limited. In contrast to Shanks v Unilever, the court found that the ‘outstanding benefit’ gained by the employer from the patent was one that was crucial to the company’s success. The patent accounted for a large amount of the company’s profits and played crucial roles in protecting the company’s competitive market edge. Unlike the ruling in Shanks v Unilever, the profitability of the patent in relation to the company’s wider income was considered in the court’s findings.

Therefore, the wide scope adopted in Shanks v Unilever certainly creates uncertainty for employers as to what constitutes an ‘outstanding benefit.’  Whilst the court took the time to note that for smaller businesses a simple comparison of profitability may be enough, it also warned against a simplistic approach. As such the wide interpretation of ‘outstanding benefit’ may encourage future inventors and developers to reassess their position and bring compensation claims under the Act, while employers may feel more uncertain about the extent of their IP rights over any patented inventions.

Mitigating your risk

It should be noted that under the Act employers are not able to limit or exclude an employee’s right to bring a compensation claim in a contract of employment. As an alternative, employers may consider organising the research and development of inventions so that employees have to work within teams. This may make it more difficult to clearly identify the individual contributions to the creation of a patented invention, but it may also act as a deterrent for employees, as their fair share to any ‘outstanding benefit’ gained will be diluted. As a result, they may not feel it is worth bringing proceedings. On the other hand, employers should also be wary of any measures which may impact on the effectiveness of research work.

Incentive schemes for employees have become ever more common place, particularly for those carrying out development roles in technology businesses. Whilst employers are accustomed to paying consultants and other third parties to secure the assignment of their IP rights into the relevant company, and while it is also common to incentivise employees by reference to certain milestones and targets, this case is likely to pressurise employers into widening the scope of such schemes, so that some form of compensation is paid to those who are responsible for particular inventions (and patent protection is more likely to be applicable to software development in the UK than in previous years). Whilst this may appease inventors, such an approach may also result in employers paying out additional sums without any guarantee that such amounts will be regarded as sufficient compensation for the ‘outstanding benefit’ gained.

Lastly, this case has shown that attempts by employers to assign IP rights to the wider company group may not stop cases succeeding. The benefit received was enjoyed by the whole group, and so it was immaterial in this case that the employee’s immediate employer had not received the total value gained from the patented invention.

It is clear, therefore, that Shanks v Unilever has highlighted that there is no means for employers to fully mitigate their risk against potential compensation claims. However, demonstrating that an ‘outstanding benefit’ has been enjoyed by an employer is still a high threshold to prove and compensation will still only be granted in exceptional cases.

If you would like formal legal advice on intellectual property agreements any other corporate or commercial matter, please contact a member of our corporate and commercial team.

We also act in the most complex and challenging employment disputes. If you would like legal advice in relation to an employment dispute, please contact a member of our employment team.

ABout the authors

James Fulforth is a Partner and Head of the Corporate and Commercial department. James advises on corporate transactions, including angel, VC and PE investments, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, and re-organisations. He is an advisory board member of Angel Academe, the angel investor group, and regularly acts for founders of and those investing in early-stage and startup ventures.

Jessica Rice joined Kingsley Napley in September 2019 as a paralegal in the corporate and commercial team. 

 

Latest blogs and news

5 Reasons Why Fundraising can Go Wrong

At some point in their history, businesses commonly have need for external funding to help their growth trajectory.

Three Cautionary Tales for UK Tech Companies

In tech, the law often arrives after something has gone wrong. Here are three cautionary tales* and the lessons every founder, CTO and in-house counsel should take away.

Top five takeaways from the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (the “DUAA”), which received Royal Assent on 19 June 2025, introduces targeted reforms to the UK data protection legal framework — particularly the UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (“PECR”).

Modern industrial strategy: updates to National Security and Investment Act under review

Many of you will know that the Government published, on 23 June, its Modern Industrial Strategy paper and, with it, committed to creating a “predictable, proportionate, and transparent investment screening framework” and launching a 12-week consultation on updating the definitions of the 17 sensitive sectors of the economy as set out in the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (NSIA).

A game changer for data processors? The ICO issues a significant fine against a processor

The recent cyberattacks on major UK retailers have put cybersecurity back in the spotlight. But a more significant development for data protection practitioners has been flying under the radar: the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued a notable fine directly against a data processor for breaching UK GDPR security obligations - an important shift in enforcement focus.

Basis Period Adjustments

The 2023/24 tax year marks a major shift in the way unincorporated businesses are taxed. It is a transition year, with HMRC moving from the traditional “current year basis” to a “tax year basis” from 6 April 2024. While this change is intended to simplify the system in the long run, it introduces some short-term complexities (and often tax expense) during the transition year which partners and other sole traders ought to be alive to.

Angel investing and how we can help

We have a wealth of experience acting for high net worth individuals at the outset of their angel investing journey and for seasoned angel investors who need the occasional bit of legal input. 

Key takeaways: What recent consumer law reforms mean for service providers

On 6 April 2025, the first wave of consumer protection provisions under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (“DMCC Act”) came into force, marking the most significant overhaul of UK consumer protection law in over a decade. 

Boosting cybersecurity: New Software Security Code of Practice for software vendors

In the wake of recent high-profile cyber-attacks on major retailers like Marks & Spencer and Co-op, the UK government has launched a new voluntary Code of Practice for software vendors at its flagship cyber security event, CyberUK 2025. This initiative sets a dynamic baseline for software security and resilience, aiming to help prevent such breaches in the future.

Ofcom’s new draft guidance for ‘a safer life online for women and girls’ as part of its OSA consultation process

The Office of Communications, commonly known as ‘Ofcom’ (the regulator for communication services) is calling on tech firms to make ‘the online world safer for women and girls’. 

Five things to know about criminal risk in M&A transactions

Criminal risk isn’t the first thing that comes to mind when considering the commercial drivers behind a merger or acquisition. But our recent roundtable discussion at our offices made clear that criminal liability—however peripheral it might seem—can have very real consequences for deal viability and post-completion exposure. Here are five key takeaways from a discussion that brought together legal and business perspectives on how economic crime intersects with transactional work.

Share Buybacks: Tackling Challenges and Managing Dissent

In this blog, we dive into the essentials of share buybacks, explore common issues that arise when shareholders object, and uncover creative workarounds to navigate conflicts while staying compliant and maintaining trust.

Reflections from an Exclusive Roundtable at The Ivy: Top 10 Takeaways on AI Regulation

Last week, I had the pleasure of hosting an insightful roundtable dinner at The Ivy in Covent Garden, London, bringing together thought leaders, industry experts, and business owners to discuss one of the most pressing topics of our time - AI regulation. Co-hosted by the brilliant Fred Becker, CAO of Unlikely AI, the conversation was rich with diverse perspectives, practical concerns and strategic insights.

Is Warranty and Indemnity Insurance the Key to Mitigating Risk in Your Business Sale/Purchase?

In business sales and acquisitions, managing risk is not just important – it is essential for a smooth and successful transaction. One of the most powerful tools to mitigate these risks is warranty and indemnity (“W&I”) insurance. W&I insurance provides vital protection for both buyers and sellers against unforeseen liabilities that may arise after the deal is completed.

EU Data Act: Are your SaaS contracts ready for September?

The EU Data Act is set to reshape the data landscape, and while its full impact will unfold over time, some key provisions are coming into effect this September that SaaS providers need to be aware of now. Specifically, we're talking about the rules around data switching, and how they'll likely require you to update your standard terms and existing customer agreements.

The UK government's first review of the Notifiable Acquisition Regulations

The Cabinet Office has published a report following the government's first statutory review of the performance of the Notifiable Acquisition regulations (NARs), the statutory instrument which sets out the detail of the 17 specified sectors of the economy subject to mandatory notification requirements under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (NSIA).

CGT rates rise and the Employee Ownership Trust (EOT) regime reformed: now is the time consider sale to an EOT

At midnight on 30 October 2023, while many of us slept in eager anticipation of the new labour government’s first budget, the rate of Capital Gains Tax (CGT) increased. 12 hours later the Chancellor announced the higher rate of CGT had increased by 4%. The hike is less drastic than feared and seems unlikely to cause sellers too many sleepless nights. 

National Security and Investment Act Annual Report 2023-24 – What have we learned?

The UK Government recently published its third annual report on the enforcement of the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (NSIA), which covers the period from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024.

Brace for impact: How to navigate the 2025 property tax shake-up

The new Labour government is expected to announce significant tax increases in the upcoming October budget. This follows Chancellor Rachel Reeves' revelation of £22 billion in unfunded spending.

Increasing director accountability: The new Audit Reform and Corporate Governance Bill

Earlier this month, King Charles III opened the first session of the new parliament by outlining the Labour government’s priorities. Among these was the much-anticipated draft Audit Reform and Corporate Governance Bill. It has been six years since Sir John Kingman delivered his independent review of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), and the call for robust audit reform has remained strong. 

Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print

Email this page to a friend

We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.

Leave a comment

You may also be interested in:

Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility