Category: inventions

New Judgment: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd [2020] UKSC 27 – UKSC Blog

Posted June 25th, 2020 in inventions, medicines, news, patents, Supreme Court by sally

‘Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc filed patents for a new type of genetically modified mouse which was a hybrid version of the gene that produces antibodies, combining a section of the mouse’s genetic material with a section of the genetic material from a human. In 2013, Regeneron sued Kymab Ltd for infringements of its patents. Kymab was producing its own genetically modified mice, with a similar genetic structure to Regeneron’s mice. Kymab argued that the patents filed were invalid because they fell foul of a patent law rule called sufficiency which means that documents filed with the patent must be detailed enough to enable scientifically skilled readers to make the invention for themselves. The Court of Appeal upheld the patents and Kymab appealed to the Supreme Court.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 24th June 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

FRAND – NIPC Law

Posted October 9th, 2017 in competition, EC law, inventions, licensing, news, patents, public interest, standards by sally

‘FRAND stands for “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory”. It refers to the terms upon which the owner of a patent for an invention that is essential to a standard (“standard essential patent” or “SEP”) should license its use.’

Full Story

NIPC Law, 8th October 2017

Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk

Cadbury UK Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Societe Des Produits Nestle SA intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted July 13th, 2016 in appeals, costs, inventions, law reports, patents, public interest, third parties, trade marks by sally

Cadbury UK Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Societe Des Produits Nestle SA intervening) [2016] EWHC 1609 (Ch)

‘Where a party intervenes in an appeal from a decision of a hearing officer acting on behalf of the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, ordinary a costs order will not be made in the intervener’s favour. The court will only consider departing from its ordinary position if it is satisfied that (1) the intervener’s position was successful, (2) its submission added value to the hearing, and (3) it had not duplicated the respondent’s submissions (paras 10, 12).’

WLR Daily, 7th July 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Patents – Employees’ Compensation: Shanks v Unilever – NIPC Law

Posted July 3rd, 2014 in compensation, employment, inventions, news, patents by sally

‘S.39 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 provides:
“Notwithstanding anything in any rule of law, an invention made by an employee shall, as between him and his employer, be taken to belong to his employer for the purposes of this Act and all other purposes if –
(a) it was made in the course of the normal duties of the employee or in the course of duties falling outside his normal duties, but specifically assigned to him, and the circumstances in either case were such that an invention might reasonably be expected to result from the carrying out of his duties; or
(b) the invention was made in the course of the duties of the employee and, at the time of making the invention, because of the nature of his duties and the particular responsibilities arising from the nature of
his duties he had a special obligation to further the interests of the employer’s undertaking.”‘

Full story

NIPC Law, 2nd July 2014

Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk

Shanks v Unilever plc and others (No 2) – WLR Daily

Posted June 5th, 2014 in benefits, employment, inventions, law reports, patents by sally

Shanks v Unilever plc and others (No 2) [2014] EWHC 1647 (Pat); [2014] WLR (D) 242

‘The time value of money received by an employer following the vesting of an invention by an employee was not a benefit derived by the employer for the purposes of section 41(1) of the Patents Act 1977.’

WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Schutz (UK) Limited (Respondent) v Werit (UK) Limited (Appellant); Schutz (UK) Limited No 2 (Respondent) v Werit (UK) Limited (Appellant) – Supreme Court

Posted March 13th, 2013 in intellectual property, inventions, law reports, patents by sally

Schutz (UK) Limited (Respondent) v Werit (UK) Limited (Appellant); Schutz (UK) Limited No 2 (Respondent) v Werit (UK) Limited (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 16 | UKSC 2011/0159 & UKSC 2011/0266 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 13th March 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Levi Roots ‘took Reggae Reggae sauce recipe from friend’ – Daily Telegraph

Posted November 9th, 2011 in food, inventions, media, news by tracey

“Dragon’s Den entrepreneur Levi Roots is being sued for more than £300,000 by a pal who claims he is the real inventor of the Reggae Reggae sauce, a court heard today.”

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 8th November 2011

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Examiners will not automatically rule computerisations of mental acts unpatentable, IPO says – OUT-LAW.com

Posted October 18th, 2011 in inventions, news, patents by sally

“The UK’s Intellectual Property Office has changed its guidance on how its reviewers will consider the ‘mental act’ exemption to patentability when assessing patent applications for computer-implemented inventions.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 18th October 2011

Source: www.out-law.com

High Court rules computer simulations can obtain patent protection – OUT-LAW.com

Posted October 11th, 2011 in intellectual property, inventions, judgments, news, patents by sally

“Computer simulations of designs are not ‘unpatentable’ mental acts, the High Court has ruled.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 11th October 2011

Source: www.out-law.com

Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd and another – WLR Daily

Posted April 1st, 2011 in inventions, law reports, patents by sally

Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd and another [2011] EWCA Civ 303;  [2011] WLR (D)  115

“Where an invention was a product and one asked, for the purposes of section 60(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977, whether a party had been ‘making’ a product, it was not appropriate to have regard to a ‘whole inventive concept’ test.”

WLR Daily, 29th March 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.