‘The UK government has revealed that a deal was struck earlier this year to enable the UK to participate in the new Unified Patent Court (UPC) system during any Brexit implementation period that might apply.’
OUT-LAW.com, 8th August 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘This was an appeal by the claimant company, A P Racing Ltd (“AP”), against the decision of His Honour Judge Hacon in AP Racing Ltd v Alcon Components Ltd [2017] EWHC 248 (IPEC) (15 Feb 2017). His Honour held that one of 7 disk brake calipers manufactured by Alcon Components Ltd (“Alcon”) infringed UK patent no. GB 2,452,690 for a disc brake caliper body and a disc brake caliper comprising such a body but the other 6 did not. AP appealed against the finding of non-infringement in relation to 2 of Alcon’s calipers, CAR 1249 and CAR 37.’
NIPC Law, 24th June 2018
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘The UK’s recent ratification of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement marked an important step towards a new system of unitary patent protection becoming operational. The process has been lengthy and complex and is not over yet.’
OUT-LAW.com, 1st May 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Daptomycin is an antibiotic used to treat systemic and life-threatening infections caused by multiple drug resistant bacteria. Its effectiveness depends on its purity. The invention for which the patent in suit was granted was a way of purifying the antibiotic. In Hospira UK Ltd v Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC [2016] EWHC 1285 (Pat) (10 June 2016), Hospira UK Ltd, (a British subsidiary of Pfizer) sought the revocation of that patent. Mr Justice Henry Carr found that the patent was invalid and ordered its revocation. Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC (a subsidiary of Merck & Co.) appealed against that judgment and order in Hospira UK Ltd v Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC [2018] EWCA Civ 12 (18 Jan 2018).’
NIPC Law, 24th January 2018
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘In FRAND 8 Oct 2017 I discussed the terms upon which patents for inventions that are essential to a standard are licensed. I noted that courts around the world had held that those terms should be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory – in other words, FRAND. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computer Incorporation and Others [2017] EWCA Civ 1526 (11 Oct 2017) concerned the construction of a clause licensing such patents. It is important to note, however, that none of the judges who heard the appeal mentioned the acronym, FRAND, and it appeared only twice in the judgment of the trial judge.’
NIPC Law, 13th October 2017
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘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.’
NIPC Law, 8th October 2017
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘Supreme Court (Lords Neuberger, Mance, Clarke, Sumption and Hodge) Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and others [2017] UKSC 48 (12 July 2017)
What the Appeal was about
The pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Co (“Lilly”) has developed a drug called pemetrexed which it markets under the brand name Alimta for the treatment of various types of cancer. Used on its own, pemetrexed has unpleasant side effects that can sometimes be fatal but these can be avoided when it is administered as a compound called pemetrexed disodium in combination with vitamin B12.’
NIPC Law, 13th July 2017
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘A piece of legislation that UK law makers must pass so that the country can ratify a new Unified Patent Court (UPC) system in Europe has been laid before parliament.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th June 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The first defendant in the first of two claims entered into a licence with the claimant in respect of a portfolio of patents, including a US patent, concerning tocilizumab, an immunosuppressive drug. The claimant sought, inter alia, a declaration that it was not obliged to continue to pay royalties under the licence in respect of its tocilizumab products. The defendants alleged that, although framed as a claim for a declaration relating to a contract, a part of the proceedings, in substance, concerned not only the scope but also the validity of the US patent. Accordingly, consideration of the claim would infringe the territorial limits of the courts jurisdictional powers and constitute an affront to comity (“the Moçambique rule”) and/or the foreign act of state doctrine, which militated against the English court determining issues relating to sovereign acts of a foreign state.’
WLR Daily, 26th May 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Chinese mobile device manufacturer Huawei has lost a legal challenge against the validity of a patent owned by Unwired Planet.’
OUT-LAW.com, 25th April 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Finnish mobile device manufacturer Nokia was due to argue that Apple has infringed one of its technology patents before the High Court in London on Friday.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th April 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The shock of last June’s referendum result, with the UK electorate opting to leave the European Union, is starting to fade. Now the hard graft begins. Tomorrow British Prime Minister Theresa May will trigger Article 50, starting the two year process of negotiations that will end with a deal, an untidy departure or (maybe) an agreement to keep talking. Since the first analysis of what Brexit will mean for businesses we have learned more about what the UK intends to keep and discard. How are things looking now?’
Technology Law Update, 28th March 2017
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘A record number of European patents were granted to UK businesses in 2016 by the European Patent Office (EPO), according to new figures.’
OUT-LAW.com, 9th March 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘This was a claim by the Jushi Group Co. Ltd. (“Jushi”) for declarations of invalidity and non-infringement and the revocation of European patent number 1 831 118 for glass yarns for reinforcing organic and/or inorganic materials. The patentee, OCV Intellectual Capital LLC (a subsidiary of Owens Corning) (“OCV”), counterclaimed for infringement of the patent. Jushi admitted infringement if the patent was valid. The only issue to be determined was whether the patent was valid. The action came on before His Honour Judge Hacon on the 5 and 6 Dec 2016. His Honour delivered judgment on 6 Feb 2017.’
NIPC Law, 8th February 2017
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘The presiding judge at the UK’s Intellectual Property Enterprise Court has said the court still serves a purpose despite the growing availability of flexible trials elsewhere.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 3rd February 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The principle outlined in the White Book that the Court of Appeal should more readily grant permission to appeal in patent cases no longer holds good, it ruled last week.’
litigation Futures, 20th December 2016
Source: www.litgationfutures.com
‘The principles that govern when losers of patent disputes can recover costs from winners on particular issues in the case are the same as those that apply to other types of litigation, a High Court judge has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 2nd November 2016
Source: wwww.out-law.com
‘Swimmer Ryan Lochte probably isn’t bothering anyone by trademarking ‘Jeah’, his bizarre victory scream – but can Specsavers really patent ‘should’ve’, or can Facebook own ‘face’ and ‘book’? The world of trademark law is murky indeed.’
The Guardian, 20th August 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The UK’s Intellectual Property Office has issued a briefing on the future for IP rights after Brexit. This gives IP owners some crumbs of comfort to innovative businesses, but little detail.’
Technology Law Update, 5th August 2016
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2018