‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that an artificial intelligence machine cannot qualify as an “inventor” for the purposes of Sections 7 and 13 of the Patents Act because it is not a person. Further, in determining whether a person had the right to apply for a patent under Section 7(2)(b), there was no rule of law that new intangible property produced by existing tangible property was the property of the owner of the tangible property, and certainly no rule that property in an invention created by a machine was owned by the owner of the machine.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 28th September 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Pharmaceutical manufacturers that claim patent rights over multiple compounds on the basis of a general formula will welcome a new ruling by the Court of Appeal in London, experts in patent litigation have said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 2nd September 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The High Court in London has decided in favour of Optis Cellular Technology in a dispute over the validity of one of its telecommunications network patents and one that was said to be essential to the long-term evolution (LTE) network standard.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th July 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in Unwired Planet. Its decision has profound implications for patent owners and implementers alike and is likely to lead to heavily contested jurisdictional disputes going forward.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 15th September 2020
Source: competitionbulletin.com
‘The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in Unwired Planet. Its decision has profound implications for patent owners and implementers alike and is likely to lead to heavily contested jurisdictional disputes going forward.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 15th September
Source: competitionbulletin.com
‘Long-awaited Supreme Court rulings on mobile phone patents will boost the UK’s position as a forum for resolving global IP licensing disputes, specialist lawyers said today.’
Law Society's Gazette, 26th August 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘This appeal discusses whether the English court has the power or jurisdiction, or is it a proper exercise of any such power or jurisdiction without the parties’ agreement:
– to grant an injunction restraining infringement of a UK SEP unless the defendant enters into a global licence under a multinational patent portfolio;
– to determine the rates/terms for such a licence; and
– to declare that such rates/terms are FRAND?’
UKSC Blog, 26th August 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘In this case comment, Caitlin Heard, Frances Denney and Robert Stephen, who all work within the intellectual property team at CMS, comment on the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court in June 2020 in the matter of Regeneron v Kymab [2020] UKSC 27, which concerns whether patents were invalid for insufficiency.’
UKSC Blog, 2nd July 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘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.’
UKSC Blog, 24th June 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘In Evalve Inc and others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd #1 [2020] EWHC 514 (Pat) (12 March 2020)). Mr Justice Birss held that two patents that protected the market for a device known as the MitraClip were valid and infringed. In Evalve Inc and others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd (#2) [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat) (12 March 2020) Mr Justice Birss rejected the defendant’s contention that it should be allowed to market its product notwithstanding the judgment on the ground that some patients were assisted by a product that competed with the MitraClip but not by the MitraClip itself. I blogged about those cases in Patents – Evalve Inc. and Others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd. #1 27 March 2020 NIPC Law and Patents – Evalve Inc. and Others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd. #2 30 March 2020.’
NIPC Law, 20th June 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘Owners of patent portfolios will be aware of how patent infringement claims and attacks on patent validity often interact.’
Technology Law Update, 18th June 2020
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘This was an application by Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd. (“Neurim”), the registered proprietor of European patent (UK) number 1441702 and Flynn Pharma Ltd. (“Flynn”) the proprietor’s exclusive licensee for an interim injunction to restrain until trial or further order the generics manufacturer, Mylan, from taking steps that might infringe that patent. The application was heard online by Mr Justice Marcus Smith on 20 May 2020. He handed down his judgment on 3 June 2020.’
NIPC Law, 4th June 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘This was an appeal from the refusal of the hearing officer, Mr Huw Jones, to revoke British patents GB2451719 (“719”) and GB2496951(“951”) (see Rockwool International A/S and Knauf Insulation Limited BL 0/291/19 28 May 2019).’
NIPC Law, 23rd May 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘Intellectual property lawyers report increased demand for services during Covid-19 crisis.’
The Guardian, 24th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Foreign patents could prevent UK citizens accessing treatment for COVID-19, warns Professor Mark Engelman.’
Counsel, May 2020
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
‘This was a claim by Akebia Therapeutics Inc.(“Akebia”) and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (“Otsuka”) to revoke 6 patents held by FibroGen Inc. (“FibroGen”). The reason why they sought the revocation of those patents is that they wished to market their own product vadadustat. FibroGen’s exclusive licensee, Astellas Pharma Inc (“Astellas”) brought quia timet infringement proceedings against Akebia, Otsuka and FibroGen. The proceedings came on before Lord Justice Arnold between 2 and 19 March 2020. His lordship delivered judgment on 20 April 2020.’
NIPC Law, 5th May 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘Biotechnology in the United Kingdom is the industry of organisms that manufacture commercial products. Interestingly, it can be quite controversial at times i.e. stem cells and gene cloning. Despite this, biotechnology is integral to advancements in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 21st February 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘This was an application by the claimant, Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL for disclosure of the licence agreements and assignments relating to 3G and 4G patents that had been entered by the defendants, Huawei Technologies Co Ltd., ZTE (UK) Limited and their British subsidiaries. Substantially the same application had been made to His Honour Judge Hacon at the case management conference in the action which took place in July 2019. The later application was heard by Mr Justice Birss who delivered judgment in Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and others [2020] EWHC 256 (Pat) on 10 Feb 2020. The reference to the CMC in the transcript of Mr Justice Birss’s judgment is [2009] EWHC 1982 (Pat) but I think that must be a misprint for [2019].’
NIPC Law, 22nd February 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘This was a claim for patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation on grounds of anticipation, obviousness and added matter. There was also an application for unconditional and conditional amendments to the patent. The claim and counterclaim came on before His Honour Judge Hacon sitting as a judge of the Patents Court in Technetix BV and another v Teleste Ltd [2019] EWHC 3106 (Pat) (18 Nov 2019). His Honour tried the action in May and delivered judgment on 18 Nov 2019. The learned judge held at paragraph [122] of his judgment that the patent was invalid on all three grounds .and refused the amendments though he found that the patent would have been infringed hand it been valid.’
NIPC Law, 19th November 2019
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
© Inner Temple Library 2021