“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
“The law of patents is not always patently clear, but one point is obvious. The question of obviousness is not one that admits of endless elaboration. It is, in fact, obvious.
In a judgment handed down yesterday, MedImmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1234, the Court of Appeal, dismissing appeals from Arnold J [2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat) and [2012] EWHC 181 (Pat) made a number of observations on the matter.”
ICLR Blog, 11th October 2012
Source: www.theiclr.blogspot.co.uk
“Until now taking legal action against others who copy creative work, brand names and logos or otherwise try to take advantage of someone else’s creativity has been beyond the reach of most people. That changes on Monday when the small claims track becomes available for intellectual property claims in England and Wales.”
The Guardian, 2nd October 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Apple has been ordered to take out advertisements in major newspapers – including the Daily Mail, the Guardian and the Financial Times – pointing to a UK high court ruling that says Samsung did not copy its iPad, the Bloomberg news agency is reporting. It said the order came from Judge Colin Birss in a ruling on 18 July following his 9 July ruling in which he said that Samsung did not infringe Apple’s patents because the American company’s device was ‘cool’ but Samsung’s “are not as cool” even while they were “very, very similar” viewed from the front.”
The Guardian, 19th July 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Apple lost a key patent battle against smartphone rival HTC in the high court in London today, meaning that the Silicon Valley company cannot ban certain of the Taiwanese firm’s products in Britain.”
The Guardian, 4th July 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“After years of wrangling, European Council announces where EU-wide patent applications will be heard.”
The Guardian, 3rd July 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023