Posts

Copyright - Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Image
Author The Lud   Licence Copyright waiver   Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Lord Justice Warby) Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 1245 (Ch) (12 May 2021) At a directions hearing before Lord Justice Warby on 5 May 2021, His Lordship granted summary judgment to the Duchess of Sussex in her claim for copyright infringement against the publisher of The Mail on Sunday and The Mail Online. He made a number of consequential orders and gave directions for the taking of an account of profits.  His judgment in  Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 1245 (Ch) (12 May 2021) sets out the reasons for those orders and directions. The Litigation The Duchess of Sussex sued Associated Newspapers because The Mail on Sunday and The Mail Online published large extracts of a letter that she wrote to her father.  Her causes of action were misuse of private information, breach of her statutory rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 and copyright infringement. 

The IMDb Credits - Martin v Kogan

Image
Florence Foster Jenkins  by G B Bain   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Justice Meade) Martin and another v Kogan [2021] EWHC 1242 (IPEC) (19 May 2021) Florence Foster Jenkins  seems to have been a rather good film about a less than good opera singer. The idea for the film seems to have been Julia Kogan's.  After a trial before Judge Hacon ( Martin and Another v Kogan [2017] EWHC 2927 (IPEC) (22 Nov 2017)) an appeal to the Court of Appeal ( Martin and another v Kogan [2019] EWCA Civ 164) and a retrial before Mr Justice Meade, the learned judge found that Ms Kogan was a joint author of the screenplay and that her contribution was 20% (see Martin and another v Kogan [2021] EWHC 24 (Ch) (11 Jan 2021)).  I discussed that litigation in  What constitutes Joint Copyright? Martin v Kogan   29 Dec 2017,  Joint Copyright - The Appeal in Martin and Another v Kogan   16 Oct 2019 and  Joint Copyright - The Retrial in Martin and Another v Kogan   19 Jan 2021. The Int

A Point of Interest - FBT Productions, LLC v Let Them Eat Vinyl Distribution Ltd

Image
Usury Author Albrecht Durer "Ship of Fools"   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Ian Karet)  FBT Productions, LLC v Let Them Eat Vinyl Distribution Ltd [2021] EWHC 1316 (IPEC) (17 May 2021) S.15 and Sched 1  of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 inserted a new s.35A (1) into the Senior Courts Act 1981: "Subject to rules of court, in proceedings (when-ever instituted) before the High Court for the recovery of a debt or damages there may be included in any sum for which judgement is given simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as rules of court may provide, on all or any part of the debt or damages in respect of which judgement, for all or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and— (a) in the case of any sum paid before judgement, the date of the payment; and (b) in the case of the sum for which judgement is given, the date of the judgement." In    FBT Productions, LLC v Let Them Eat Vinyl Distr

Patents - Claydon Yield-O-Meter v Mzuri

Image
  Jane Lamber t Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Claydon Yield-O-Meter Limited v Mzuri Ltd and anothe r [2021] EWHC 1007 (IPEC) (22 April 2021) This was a claim by Claydon Yield-O-Meter Limited ("Claydon") against Mzuri Ltd ("Mzuri") and its director for the infringement of GB  2 400 296 for an “Improved seed drill” (“296”)  and EP2051576 (“576”) also for an improved seed drill . There was also a counterclaim by Mzuri for the revocation of those patents. The action and counterclaim came on for trial before HH Judge Hacon between 24 and 26 Feb 2021. The learned judge delivered judgment on 22 April 2021 (see  Claydon Yield-O-Meter Limited v Mzuri Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 1007 (IPEC) (22 April 2021). By para [155] of his judgment, he found that 296 was invalid but had it been valid it would have been infringed. He also found 576 not to be valid and not to have been infringed. Issues Judge Hacon considered first whether 296 had been infringed

Patents - Facebook Ireland Ltd v Voxer IP LLC

Image
  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Lord Justice Birss)  Facebook Ireland Ltd v Voxer IP LLC [2021] EWHC 1377 (Pat) (26 May 2021) This was an action by Facebook Ireland Ltd  ("Facebook") for the revocation of  EP 2 393 259 B1  ("the patent") held by Voxer IP LLC ("Voxer") and a counterclaim by Voxer for infringement of the patent. Voxer applied for the amendment of its patent and it was common ground that the patent would have to be revoked if the application had been refused. Facebook objected to the amendments on several grounds including  added matter .   It also contended that amendment would not cure the patent's invalidity.  The action and counterclaim came on for trial before Lord Justice Birss between 12 and 15 April 2021. He delivered judgment in Facebook Ireland Ltd v Voxer IP LLC [2021] EWHC 1377 (Pat) on 26 May 2021. The Patent The invention for which the patent was granted is called a telecommunication and multimedia management method and app

Service of Process in China - GK IP Bridge 1 v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd.

Image
Author Addicted04   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court (Nicholas Caddick QC) GK IP Bridge 1 v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd. and others    2021] EWHC 1261 (Pat) (14 May 2021) This was an application by two Chinese companies, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and Huawei Device Co. Ltd. to set aside an order by the Chief Master to permit service of process against them on the British company Huawei Technologies (UK) Ltd, and the companies' solicitors.  The application came on before Nicholas Caddick QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 15 April 2021. By para [36] of his judgment of 14 May 2021. Mr Caddick QC set aside the Chief Master's order (see GK    IP Bridge 1 v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and others  [2021] EWHC 1261 (Pat) (14 May 2021). The Dispute This is a dispute between Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and Huawei Device Co. Ltd and the first defendant's British subsidiary, Huawei Technologies (UK) Ltd., implementors of an ETS

FRAND - Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v Oneplus Technology

Image
Author Dori   Public Domain Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co, Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1048 (Pat) (26 April 2021) This was a trial to determine whether European patent (UK) 1925142B1  is essential to version 10.0.0 and all subsequent versions of TS36.322 of the 4th generation 3GPP Long-Term Evolution (“LTE’) standard.  The registered proprietor of the patent is SISVEL International S.A which is the second claimant in these proceedings.   The proceedings are part of a wider dispute as to whether the defendants should take a licence from the first claimant's patent pool ("MCP pool") on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms.  As is often the case in FRAND disputes the defendant implementors denied the patent's validity, its essentiality to the standard and that it had been infringed.  They also disputed the fairness, reasonableness a