Mr Dichand’s case in law
27.There was no dispute that if HTI acquired the PCT Applications, they had subsequently been lawfully assigned to HTHL. 28.Mr Dichand’s primary case was that Dr Spaziante fraudulently misrepresented to Mr Dichand in December 2013 that Mr Dichand would need to sign papers relating to a new patent application. This misrepresentation induced Mr Dichand to sign the document provided to him by Dr Holasut on 13 December 2013 and thus to enter into the First Assignment. Mr Dichand claimed that the First Assignment should be rescinded. 29.The alternative pleaded arguments were: (1)Dr Spaziante was in breach of his fiduciary duty or duty of fidelity to Mr Dichand by misrepresenting the document later given to Mr Dichand to sign. (2)Mr Dichand made a unilateral mistake regarding the terms of the document he signed. (3)Dr Spaziante had been unjustly enriched by the transfer of the PCT Applications to HTHL. This was because Mr Dichand had signed the First Assignment under a false belief that it was a fifth PCT application and so it would be unconscionable for HTHL to retain ownership of the PCT Applications. (4)Dr Spaziante was in breach of his fiduciary duty to Mr Dichand because he had disposed of assets of the partnership without Mr Dichand’s consent, had failed to account to Mr Dichand for the benefit acquired by HTHL and had failed to disclose the nature of the First Assignment. 30.By reason of the first, second and third alternative arguments the First Assignment was said to be void ab initio. Otherwise, pursuant to the fourth, the PCT Applications and patents derived from them were held on constructive trust by HTHL for Mr Dichand and Dr Spaziante. 31.In opening Mr Edenborough submitted that if I were satisfied by Mr Dichand’s primary case – that there had been a misrepresentation – I need go no further. If not, I must consider each of the further alternative cases. 32.However, the argument on breach of fiduciary duty or duty of care also depended on the alleged misrepresentation. The document is on its face clear. Dr Spaziante can only have failed to disclose to Mr Dichand the true nature of the First Assignment by misrepresenting its true nature. 33.The case on unjust enrichment, as developed by Mr Edenborough, came to the First Assignment lacking consideration; it was for this reason that the First Assignment was void. 34.By the time of closing speeches Mr Dichand’s case was put three alternative ways: fraudulent misrepresentation, unilateral mistake and lack of consideration.