Posts

Supplementary Protection Certificates - Halozyme v The Comptroller

Image
A utho r Fvasconcellos   Public Domain Source Wikimedia Commons     Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mead)  Halozyme, Inc v The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Mark s [2024] EWHC 3202 (Pat) (16 Dec 2024) This was an appeal against Dr Lawrence Cullen's decision in  Halozyme, Inc. v The Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks   BL O/0257/24 of 27 Mar 2024 in which he refused Halozyme Inc.'s applications for supplementary protection certificates for  Trastuzumab and recombinant human hyaluronidase and  Rituximab and recombinant human hyaluronidase. Supplementary Protection Certificate In my article Supplementary Protection Certificate s  I described a supplementary protection certificate ("SPC") as  "an intellectual property right ("IPR") that protects the active ingredients in pharmaceutical or plant protection products."   I explained that: "The right comes into force upon the expi...

Practice - Leeds Plywood & Doors Ltd v Deanta UK Ltd

Image
Entrance to the Rolls Building where IPEC sits By Muhammad Karns - Judicial Office Twitter feed., CC BY-SA 4.0,  https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=78284579   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Recorder Amanda Michaels)  Leeds Plywood & Doors Ltd v Deanta UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 1376 (IPEC) (3 Jun 2025) This transcript records Recorder Amansa Michaels's judgments in two interim applications: The defendant's application to strike out certain paragraphs of the claimant's managing director's witness statement and a cross-application by the claimant to strike out part of the witness statement of one of the defendant's witnesses; and  The claimant's application for specific disclosure. These applications seem to have been made at a very late stage because the recorder said at para [3] of her judgment that the trial was to take place in July.  The cause of action is not made clear, but as both parties make doors and there are references ...

Threats Actions - Bargain Busting v Shenzhen Technology

Image
Vape Cloud Chasing Author VAPES   Licence CC BY-2.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Miles)  Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 1239 (Ch) (21 May 2025) This was an application by Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd (Shenzhen) to restrain Bargain Busting Ltd ("BB") from threatening trade mark infringement proceedings against Shenzhen's distributors and retailers.  BB is the registered proprietor of UK trade marks  UK00003235344  and  UK00003534551 , which Shenzhen has challenged on the grounds of non-use and invalidity.  BB has also applied to register CRYSTAL BAR  as a trade mark under trade mark number UK00003786148 .  Shenzhen responded to BB's threats by seeking an order under s .21C  to prevent BB from making further threats of proceedings against Shenzhen's distributors and retailers.  It also sought information on the parties BB had...

Civil Restraint Orders - COPA v Wright

Image
Author  Satoshi Nakamoto P ublic Domain Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Mellor) Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wrigh t   [2025] EWHC 1139 (Ch) (12 May 2025) This was an application by Crypto Open Patent Alliance ("COPA") and SquaredUp Europe Ltd ("SquaredUp") for a General Civil Restraint Order ("GCRO") or, alternatively. an Extended Civil Restraint Order ("ECRO") against Dr Craig Steven Wright ("Dr Wright").  Para 4.2 (1(b) and (c)  of Practice Direction 3C - Civil Restraint Orders provides that a GCRO made by a High Court judge restrains the party against whom it is made from issuing any claim or making any application without first obtaining the permission of the judge identified in the order.   Para 3.2 (1) (b) and (c) of that practice direction provides that an ECRO made by a High Court judge restrains the party against whom it is made from issuing claims or making applications in the High Court...

The Appeal in Optis v Apple

Image
iPhones Author iPhone 15   Licence CC BY-SA   4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Newey, Arnold and Birss)  Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others [2025] EWCA Civ 552 (1 May 2025) This was an appeal by Optis Cellular Technology LLC, Optis Wireless Technology LLC and Unwired Planet International Ltd. ("Optis") against a declaration by Mr Justice Marcus Smith on 16 Feb 2024 that a licence annexed to his order was fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND"),   The learned judge had granted the declaration following his judgments in   Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others   [2023] EWHC 1095 (Ch) 10 May 2023 and  Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others   : [2024] EWHC 197 (Ch) 14 Feb 2024.  According to para [4] of Lord Justice Birss's judgment in  Optis Cellular Technology LL...

Interim Injunctions: AstraZeneca v Glenmark

Image
  Jane Lambert Court of Appea l (Lords Justices Coulson, Arnold and Warby) AstraZeneca AB and another v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 480 (16 April 2025) This was an appeal against Michael Tappin KC's refusal in  AstraZeneca AB and another v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd (Re Interim Injunction Application) [2025] EWHC 748 (Pat) (28 March 2025)   to grant AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca UK Ltd. an interim injunction to restrain Gelnmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd. from selling a product containing dapagliflozin pending a hearing on the form of order following a trial to determine the validity of the first claimant's supplemental protection certificates  for dapagliflozin and a combination of dapagliflozin and metformin.  The appeal was heard by Lords Justices Coulson, Arnold and Warby on 9 April 2025.  At the end of the hearing, the Lords Justices announced that they would allow AstraZeneca's appeal.  Lord Justice Arno...