Appeal court shows its bottle – summary judgment on patent infringement – Techology Law Update

Posted October 20th, 2014 in appeals, expert witnesses, news, patents, summary judgments by sally

‘It is unusual for a patent infringement case to be decided without a full trial. A judge will normally want to hear evidence from experts to understand what people working in the relevant field would have known at the time when the patent was first filed. Recent examples of this kind of analysis can be found in Virgin v Rovi (discussed here) and Teva v AstraZeneca.’

Full story

Technology Law Update, 20th October 2014

Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk

Comments Off

Speech by Lord Justice Jackson: Costs Law and Practice Conference – Judiciary of England and Wales

Posted October 1st, 2014 in civil justice, costs, patents, personal injuries, speeches by tracey

‘Keynote speech by Lord Justice Jackson at the Costs Law And Practice Conference on 30th September 2014.’

Full speech

Judiciary of England and Wales, 30th September 2014

Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk

Comments Off

How October 1 will change your life – Daily Telegraph

‘As a number of new laws come into effect this week, we take a look at how your life will be affected.’

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 1st October 2014

Source: www.telegrpah.co.uk

Comments Off

The Intellectual Property Act 2014 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2014 – NIPC Law

Posted September 8th, 2014 in bills, copyright, damages, intellectual property, news, patents, trade marks by sally

‘On 14 May 2014 the Intellectual Property Bill received royal assent. The Act made some far reaching changes in patents, registered design and unregistered design right law which I summarized in “Reflections on the Intellectual Property Act 2014″ 7 June 2014 4-5 IP Tech and discussed in detail in “How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 changes British Patent Law” 21 June 2014 JD Supra, “How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 changes British Registered Design Law” 19 June 2014 JD Supra and “How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 will change British Unregistered Design Right Law” 11 June 2014 JD Supra 11 June 2014. On 28 Aug 2014 Lady Neville-Rolfe, Minister for Intellectual Property, signed The Intellectual Property Act 2014 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2014 which will bring many of the provisions of the Act into force.’

Full story

NIPC Law, 6th September 2014

Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk

Comments Off

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

Comments Off

Unified Patent Court Consultation – NIPC Law

Posted June 25th, 2014 in consultations, courts, news, patents by sally

‘As I said in How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 changes British Patent Law 21 June 2014 JD Supra, the most important provision of the Intellectual Property Act 2014 is s.17 which inserts a new s.88A into the Patents Act 1977. That section confers power on the Secretary of State to make provision in the UK for the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court.’

Full story

NIPC Law, 25th June 2014

Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk

Comments Off

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

Comments Off

Intellectual Property Act 2014

Posted May 15th, 2014 in intellectual property, legislation, patents by tracey

Intellectual Property Act 2014 published

Full text of Act

Source: www.legislation.gov.uk

Comments Off

Intellectual property law – achieving a balance between the right to enforce and protecting innovation – Law Commission

‘Patents, trade marks and design rights are valuable intellectual property (IP) rights and vital to economic growth. They ensure that research and innovation is encouraged and rewarded. And, for some small businesses, they can represent their most significant assets. The law provides effective ways to enforce IP rights but these can be misused to drive competitors from the market. In a report published today, the Law Commission is recommending reforms that will allow individuals and businesses to protect their IP rights but not at the expense of new ideas and inventions.’

Full report

Law Commission, 15th April 2014

Source: www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission

Comments Off

Intellectual Property in the UK and Europe – Speech by Lord Neuberger

Posted April 14th, 2014 in EC law, intellectual property, news, patents, trade marks by sally

Intellectual Property in the UK and Europe (PDF)

Speech by Lord Neuberger

Burrell Lecture for the Competition Law, 1st April 2014

Source: www.supremecourt.uk

Comments Off

Equitable Interests in Patents and Patent Applications – NIPC Law

Posted April 11th, 2014 in constructive trusts, equity, news, patents by sally

‘In Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Others [2007] Bus LR 1796, [2007] BusLR 1796, [2008] 1 All ER 425, [2007] UKHL 43 Lord Hoffmann described s.7 (2) and (3) of the Patents Act 1977 as “an exhaustive code for determining who is entitled to the grant of a patent.”‘

Full story

NIPC Law, 10th April 2014

Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk

Comments Off

Delay to the operation of new unified patent court – OUT-LAW.com

Posted March 25th, 2014 in courts, delay, news, patents by sally

‘A new court system that is being set up to handle disputes about unitary patents may not be operational until 2016, the group established to deliver the new system has said.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 24th March 2014

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off

SPCs – unhealthy combinations of new cases – Technology Law Update

Posted February 27th, 2014 in intellectual property, medicines, news, patents by sally

‘The Supplementary Protection Certificate. A marvellous little device for giving back to a patent owner the lost years during which it has been obtaining regulatory approval for its products in those heavily regulated areas: pharmaceuticals and plant protection products. You simply extend the patent by the number of years that the product has spent caught up in the approval process, and there you are. A gain of up to five valuable years on the end of your patent in the prime of the product’s life.’

Full story

Technology Law Update, 26th February 2014

Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk

Comments Off

V‏irgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Jet Airways (India) Ltd and others (Controller General of Patents and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills intervening); Zodiac Seats UK Ltd (formerly Contour Aerospace Ltd) v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (Controller General of Patents and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted January 8th, 2014 in aircraft, human rights, jurisdiction, law reports, patents by sally

V‏irgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Jet Airways (India) Ltd and others (Controller General of Patents and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills intervening); Zodiac Seats UK Ltd (formerly Contour Aerospace Ltd) v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (Controller General of Patents and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills intervening) [2013] EWCA Civ 1713 ; [2013] WLR (D) 511

‘The English Patents Court had no jurisdiction to review or investigate the decision of European Patent Office (EPO) to register a patent on an application under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, since the United Kingdom’s sovereign power in relation to that issue had been surrendered to the EPO under the European Patent Convention (EPC).’

WLR Daily, 20th December 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Actavis Group PTC EHF and another v Sanofi (Sanofi Pharma Bristol-Myers Squibb SNC intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted December 16th, 2013 in EC law, law reports, medicines, patents by sally

Actavis Group PTC EHF and another v Sanofi (Sanofi Pharma Bristol-Myers Squibb SNC intervening) (Case C-443/12); [2013] WLR (D) 491

‘Where, on the basis of a patent protecting an innovative active ingredient and a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product containing that ingredient as the single active ingredient, the holder of that patent had already obtained a supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”) for that active ingredient entitling him to oppose the use of that active ingredient, either alone or in combination with other active ingredients, article 3(c) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 precluded that patent holder from obtaining—on the basis of that same patent but a subsequent marketing authorisation (“MA”) for a different medicinal product containing that active ingredient in conjunction with another active ingredient which was not protected as such by the patent— a second supplementary protection certificate relating to that combination of active ingredients.’

WLR Daily, 12th December 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Eli Lilly and Co Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc – WLR Daily

Posted December 16th, 2013 in EC law, law reports, medicines, patents by sally

Eli Lilly and Co Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc (Case C-493/12); [2013] WLR (D) 489

‘Pursuant to article 3(a) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, in order for an active ingredient to be regarded as “protected by a basic patent in force” within the meaning of that provision, it was not necessary for the active ingredient to be identified in the claims of the patent by a structural formula. Where the active ingredient was covered by a functional formula in the claims of a patent issued by the European Patents Office (“the EPO”), article 3(a) of that Regulation did not, in principle, preclude the grant of a supplementary protection certificate for that active ingredient, on condition that it was possible to reach the conclusion that the claims related, implicitly but necessarily and specifically, to the active ingredient in question.’

WLR Daily, 12th December 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Georgetown University v Octrooicentrum Nederland – WLR Daily

Posted December 16th, 2013 in EC law, law reports, medicines, patents by sally

Georgetown University v Octrooicentrum Nederland (Case C-484/12); [2013] WLR (D) 487

‘Where, on the basis of a basic patent and a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product consisting of a combination of several active ingredients, the patent holder had already obtained a supplementary protection certificate for that combination of active ingredients, protected by that patent within the meaning of article 3(a) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, article 3(c) of that regulation did not preclude the proprietor from also obtaining a supplementary protection certificate for one of those active ingredients which, individually, was also protected as such by that patent.’

WLR Daily, 12th December 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

HTC Corpn v Nokia Corpn – WLR Daily

Posted December 6th, 2013 in injunctions, intellectual property, law reports, patents, telecommunications by tracey

HTC Corpn v Nokia Corpn: [2013] EWHC 3778 (Pat);   [2013] WLR (D)  468

‘The criteria to be applied in deciding whether or not to grant an injunction for infringement of intellectual property rights were those of efficacy, proportionality, dissuasiveness, the avoidance of creating barriers to legitimate trade and the provision of safeguards against abuse as set out in article 3(2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/48/EC.’

WLR Daily, 3rd December 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Judge orders UK ban of one HTC device but stays decision on ban of another – OUT-LAW.com

Posted December 5th, 2013 in intellectual property, news, patents, stay of proceedings, telecommunications by sally

‘An HTC mobile device will be banned from sale in the UK after Friday afternoon unless the company wins the right to appeal against the imposition of that ban on that timescale.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 5th December 2013

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off

IPCom GmbH & Co KG v HTC Europe Co Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Posted November 28th, 2013 in appeals, law reports, patents, stay of proceedings by tracey

IPCom GmbH & Co KG v HTC Europe Co Ltd and others: [2013] EWCA Civ ;   [2013] WLR (D)  456

‘The Court of Appeal gave guidance concerning the circumstances in which an English court should grant a stay of patent proceedings pending the outcome of parallel proceedings in the European Patent Office.’

WLR Daily, 21st November 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off