” The decision of Mr Justice Birss (as he now is) in Lizzanno Partitions (UK) Ltd v Interiors Manufacturing Ltd [2013] EWPCC 12 (11 April 2013) is an object lesson in claim construction.”
NIPC LAw, 17th June 2013
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
“In Digital Opportunity, A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth Professor Ian Hargreaves made 10 recommendations for IP policy which I discussed at length in “IP Policy: Does Hargreaves say Anything New?” 24 June 2011. Some of those recommendations required primary legislation. Others did not. As I said in my article, Hargreaves was not the first review of IP policy in recent years and most of the previous ones had been left to gather dust. I suspected the same would happen to Hargreaves.”
NIPC Law, 28th May 2013
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
Novartis AG v Hospira UK Ltd [2013] EWHC 1285 (Pat); [2013] WLR (D) 184
“When considering an application for an interim injunction pending an appeal, the court must not mechanically equate the existence of a real prospect of success on an appeal by a losing party with that of a good arguable case on the merits at the outset of proceedings prior to trial so that the granting of an interim injunction at the outset of proceedings before the parties’ rights had been decided would automatically justify an interim injunction pending an appeal.”
WLR Daily, 14th May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“In HTC Europe Co Ltd v Apple Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 451 (3 May 2013), the Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Richards, Lewison and Kitchin) ventured again into what Lord Justice Lewison described at paragraph [140] of the Court’s judgment as “the minefield of the exclusion from patentability of computer programs ‘as such’.”
NIPC Law, 13th May 2013
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
“As I mentioned in “Intellectual Property Litigation – the Funding Options” 10 April 2013, it was possible until the 31 March 2013 for a litigant to enter an agreement with his or her solicitors and counsel known as a conditional fee agreement (‘CFA’) whereby the lawyers would look to the other side for payment not only of their assessed costs but also of an uplift known as a success fee and the premium for insurance against their own and the other side’s costs in case of failure known as after-the-event (‘ATE’) insurance if they won the case or obtained a satisfactory settlement. As I also mentioned in that article, it is still possible to enter a CFA but any success fee and ATE insurance premium must now be paid by the successful party – usually out of any damages or accountable profits he or she may receive.”
NIPC Law, 4th May 2013
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
“On 19 April 2013, the OFT announced that it had issued a Statement of Objections following its investigation into patent litigation settlement agreements (PLSAs) in the pharmaceutical sector.”
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 3rd May 2013
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
“The EU bans the patenting of human embryos for commercial purposes. This ban is implemented in national law via the 1977 Patents Act. But what precisely is a ‘human embryo’ for the purposes of the Biotech Directive? Or, put another way, must the process involving embryonic stem cells be capable of developing into a human being, before the ban can bite?”
UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd April 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.co.uk
“A law reform body has proposed changes to the law that would make it easier for businesses seeking to protect their trade marks and design rights to make threats of legal action against alleged infringers of their rights without fear that those threats could be the subject of court action.”
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd April 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“Courts can calculate trade mark infringement damages based on a hypothetical licensing arrangement, the High Court has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 17th April 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“In a consultation opening today, the Law Commission seeks views on reform of the law relating to groundless threats of litigation over patents, trade marks and design rights.”
Law Commission, 17th April 2013
Source: www.lawcommission.justice.gov.uk
“Reforms to the Patents County Court (PCC) – including a costs cap – have been a “considerable success” and enabled more people to bring cases, the first Jackson implementation lecture in nearly nine months has revealed.”
Litigation Futures, 26th February 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“British inventors and entrepreneurs will be able to save thousands of pounds in the cost of patenting their new ideas under rules to be agreed by Vince Cable this week.”
The Independent, 17th February 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Web giant calls telecoms company’s lawsuit ‘meritless’, and claims its own intellectual property has been infringed.”
The Guardian, 14th February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Intellectual Property Litigation: Implementation of the Jackson Report’s Recommendations (PDF)
Speech by Mr Justice Arnold
AIPPI UK, 14th February 2013
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
“Article 16(1) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 gave a discretion to the national body (in the United Kingdom, the court) to revoke an extension to a supplementary protection certificate on the basis set out therein, but not an obligation to do so. The fact that the results of a particular study would not be available by the completion date of a paediatric investigation plan made pursuant to Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 did not render the plan unlawful and did not deprive the applicant of its right to the ‘reward’ of a paediatric extension under article 36 of that Regulation. article 45(3) of Regulation (EC) 1901/2006 was not of general application and did not apply when all the studies included in a paediatric investigation plan were initiated after that Regulation came into force.”
WLR Daily, 20th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Businesses will be able to obtain patent protection for their inventions within 90 days of applying for it under plans to change the way the UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) works.”
OUT-LAW.com, 18th December 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“The Review of Intellectual Property and Growth published by Professor Hargreaves in 2011 recognised the important role the UK’s patent system plays in supporting innovation and economic growth. However, the review highlighted the need for the IP framework to be more adaptable and recognised a need for change in some aspects of the way the IP system operates. Such changes will ensure the IP system continues to encourage innovation and support those UK businesses which recognise the competitive advantage that can be gained through intellectual property (‘IP’) rights.”
Consultation (PDF)
Intellectual Property Office, December 2012
Source: www.ipo.gov.uk
Clinisupplies Ltd v Park and others [2012] EWHC 3453 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 369
“The mere selection of components forming a composite article did not amount to an aspect of ‘configuration’, and hence a ‘design’, within the meaning of section 213(2) of the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.”
WLR Daily, 5th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Hollister Inc and another v Medix Ostomy Supplies Ltd: [2012] EWCA Civ 1419; [2012] WLR (D) 327
“When taking an account of costs on a normal basis under English law following infringement of a trade mark, the court was not required or permitted to assess damage caused to the claimant by the infringement nor to embark on a general inquiry into proportionality of the remedy nor to weigh factors which would point to a higher or a lower award. When the court calculated net profits it was not permissible for a defendant to allocate a proportion of its general overheads to an infringing activity.”
WLR Daily, 9th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024