“Cutting-edge research into new medical treatments in Britain was thrown into disarray on Tuesday as the highest European court ruled that stem cells from human embryos cannot be patented.”
Daily Telegraph, 18th October 2011
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The UK’s Intellectual Property Office has changed its guidance on how its reviewers will consider the ‘mental act’ exemption to patentability when assessing patent applications for computer-implemented inventions.”
OUT-LAW.com, 18th October 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
“Computer simulations of designs are not ‘unpatentable’ mental acts, the High Court has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 11th October 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
“The IPO has made changes to the wording of the UK’s Patent Rules as it said the previous copy could have been wrongly interpreted.”
OUT-LAW.com, 29th August 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
“NHS hospitals risk being taken to court and sued for millions of pounds in the future for carrying out genetic tests based on techniques patented by private companies, it was warned yesterday (Friday).”
Daily Telegraph, 5th August 2011
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Atrium Medical Corpn and another v DSB Invest Holding SA [2011] EWHC 74 (Pat); [2011] WLR (D) 202
“High Court proceedings for declarations as to whether a product incorporated technical information, thus ultimately resulting in the determination of whether royalties were due, fell within the definition of ‘intellectual property litigation’ in regulation 3 of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents Higher Courts Qualification Regulations 2007 and therefore a patent attorney litigator was an ‘authorised person’ entitled to conduct the litigation and to exercise rights of audience in relation thereto.”
WLR Daily, 21st June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“In November 2010 the Prime Minister David Cameron announced an independent review of how the Intellectual Property framework supports growth and innovation. Chaired by Professor Ian Hargreaves and assisted by a panel of experts, the review reported to Government in May 2011. The Review makes 10 recommendations designed to ensure that the UK has an IP framework best suited to supporting innovation and promoting economic growth in the digital age.”
Intellectual Property Office, 18th May 2011
Source: www.ipo.gov.uk
“Work on revolutionary medical treatments for incurable diseases is in danger of being wiped out by a European court ruling on embryonic stem cells, according to leading scientists.”
The Guardian, 27th April 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A businessman has been ordered never to improperly reveal confidential information belonging to a company where he used to be a director.”
OUT-LAW.com, 5th April 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd and another [2011] EWCA Civ 303; [2011] WLR (D) 115
“Where an invention was a product and one asked, for the purposes of section 60(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977, whether a party had been ‘making’ a product, it was not appropriate to have regard to a ‘whole inventive concept’ test.”
WLR Daily, 29th March 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has said that the planned creation of a pan-European Patent Court would break EU law. The European Commission has said that the ECJ opinion will not affect a second EU patent plan.”
OUT-LAW.com, 9th March 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Delta Air Lines Inc [2011] EWCA Civ 162; [2011] WLR (D) 60
“Notwithstanding the difficulties which could arise in cases where the technology was complex, it should not be assumed that summary judgment was not for patent disputes; the general rules as to summary judgment applied equally to patent cases as to other types of case and where the technology was relatively simple to understand, and the court was able, on summary application, to form a confident view about the claim and its construction, in particular about the understanding of the man skilled in the art, there was no good reason why summary procedure could not be invoked.”
WLR Daily, 25th February 2011
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Shanks v Unilever plc and others [2010] EWCA Civ 1283; [2010] WLR (D) 300
“‘That person’ in s 41(2) of the Patents Act 1977 meant the actual assignee with its actual attributes rather than a notional non-connected counterparty operating in the appropriate market at the appropriate time.”
WLR Daily, 26th November 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The inventor of a medical device is entitled to a ‘fair share’ of the actual benefit earned from that device by his employer, the Court of Appeal has ruled. An inventor cannot complain if his employer did not exploit the invention well or at all, it said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 29th November 2010
Source: www.out-law.com
“The Government has published a proposal to limit the value of cases that can be heard by the Patents County Court (PCC) to £500,000. It hopes that the move will reduce the cost of intellectual property (IP) litigation for most companies.”
OUT-LAW.com, 1st November 2010
Source: www.out-law.com
Shanks v Unilever plc and others [2009] EWHC 3164 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 354
“The words ‘that person’ in s 41(2) of the Patents Act 1977 referred to a notional non-connected counterparty operating in the appropriate market at the appropriate time.”
WLR Daily, 4th December 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“One of Britain’s best-known inventors is urging a change in the law to strengthen protection against those who try to steal ideas.”
BBC News, 1st September 2009
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“A plan to cut the cost of litigating over patent infringements by a factor of ten has been submitted to a review of litigation costs in England and Wales. The plan proposes cutting the cost of action from between £500,000 and £1 million to £50,000.”
OUT-LAW.com, 4th August 2009
Source: www.out-law.com
“An online news story that described a bank’s method for authenticating website visitors was valid evidence of prior art, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has ruled. The date on the web page could be taken at face value, it said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 7th July 2009
Source: www.out-law.com
Aerotel Ltd v Wavecrest Group Enterprises Ltd and others [2009] EWCA Civ 408; [2009] WLR (D) 171
“A patentee seeking to rely on commercial success as an indicator of non-obviousness in order to rebut an allegation of its patent being obvious over prior art had to establish that the commercial success relied on was due to his invention and not to other market factors. Where a number of other factors might have explained the success, unless he could show they were irrelevant or largely so, he would not have proved what he needed to rebut the allegation. The evidential onus of proof was on him, and the party making the allegation was not required to show that the commercial success was due to other factors.”
WLR Daily, 21st May 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024