NIPC Law

Author Orphan Wiki   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikipedia Oswaldtwistle Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Response Clothing Ltd v The Edinburgh Woollen Mill Ltd [2020] EWHC 148 (IPEC) (29 Jan 2020) This was an action for infringement of copyright .  The questions that His Honour Judge Hacon had to decide were whether copyright could subsist in the wave design fabric appearing in Annex 1  to his judgment in Response Clothing Ltd v The Edinburgh Woollen Mill Ltd [2020] EWHC 148 and, if so, whether it had been infringed by the sale of tops made from the fabrics shown in Annexes 3 to 6. The learned judge answered both questions in the affirmative.  By so doing, he boldly departed from the decision of the House of Lords in  George Hensher Ltd v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd [1976] AC 64. [1975] RPC 31 and offered his own interpretation of the words "a work of artistic craftsmanship" in s. 4 (1) (c) of the Copyrig

Author Mohammed Tawsif Salam   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikipedia Chancery Divison (Mr Justice Marcus Smith) TBD (Owen Holland) Ltd v Simons and others [2020] EWHC 30 (Ch) (17 Jan 2020) Jane Lambert In  Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd. and others   [1976] Ch 55, [1975] EWCA Civ 12, [1976] 1 All ER 779, Lord Denning MR noted that the judges of the Chancery Division had recently been making orders of a kind not known before whereby the plaintiff and his solicitors were authorized to enter the defendant's premises so as to prevent the loss or destruction of evidence, provided that the defendant gave them permission to enter.  Such orders were then made under the inherent jurisdiction of the court and were not covered by the Rules of the Supreme Court so it fell to the Court of Appeal to consider them on principle. It seemed to Lord Denning that such an order could be made by a judge without notice to a defendant, but it should only be made wher

Author Basher Eyre #   Lixnxw CC BY-SA 2. 0 Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mt Justice Marcus Smith)  Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Inc and others  [2020] EWHC 29 (Ch) (17 Jan 2020) This was an application by Asustek Computer In c. and its subsidiaries, Asustek (UK) Ltd. and Asus Technology Pte Limited. for an order that they cease to be parties to proceedings to determine the terms upon which Koninklijke Philips NV ("Philips") should offer licences to use its patents that are essential for compliance with standards set by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute ("ETSI"}.  The application first came before Mr Justice Marcus Smith on 27 Nov 2019.  In Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Inc. and others [2019] EWHC 3463 (Pat) (27 Nov 2019) he decided to hear the application on 13 Dec 2019.  He dismissed the application on 17 Jan 2020 in Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Inc. and other s [2020] EWHC 29 (Ch) (17 Jan 202

Author Aero Icarus Licence CC BY-SA 2.0   Source Wikipedia ATR 42 J ane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Nugee) easyGroup Ltd. v    Empresa Aerea De Servicios y Facilitation Logistica Integral SA (Easyfly SA) and others [2020] EWHC 40 (Ch) (14 Jan 2020) This was an action by easyGroup Ltd . against the Colombian airline Empresa Aerea de Servicios y Facilitation Logistica Integral SA which trades in the name or style of EasyFly  and its president Alfonso Avila Velandia for trade mark infringement, passing off and conspiracy. easyGroup complained that EastFly's website supplied air tickets to British travellers under the EasyFly sign. It also sought to join the French manufacturer, ATR Aircraft , as a third defendant. ATR had flown aircraft in EasyFly's livery on test flights around France and on a delivery mission through Spanish airspace. It had also published a press release announcing its sale of aircraft to EasyFly at the Farnborough airshow. The

Author Goodtiming8871   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikipedia Cellular Network  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss)  Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and other s [2020] EWHC 14 (Pat) (8 Jan 2020) This was a patent infringement claim by  Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL  against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd .,  ZTE Corporation  and their respective British subsidiaries.  The patents alleged to have been infringed are European patents (UK) 1 878 177  ("177"), 3 267 722  ("722") and 3 197 206  ("206"). Conversant had declared those patents to be essential to certain 3G and 4G standards. It argued that manufacturing, distributing or marketing items that met those standards without its licence would necessarily infringe the patents. The defendants contended that the patents were invalid on various grounds and denied that the patents were essential to the standards. The Trial Th

Philips's Head Office in Amsterdam Author Philips Source Wikipedia Philips   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Patten, Floyd and Henderson)    Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computer Inc. and others [2019] EWCA Civ 2230 (17 Dec 2019) This was an appeal against three separate but related judgments by Mr Justice Arnold: Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Inc, and others [2018] EWHC 1224 (Pat) (23 May 2018):  Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Inc. and others [2018] EWHC 1732 (Pat) (10 July 2018); and  Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Inc. and other s [2018] EWHC 1826 (Pat) (19 July 2018). Koninklijke Philips NV ("Philips") is the registered proprietor of the following European patents(UK):  EP1440525 for a radio communication system  ("525"),   EP1685659 for a radio communication system, method of operating a communication system, and a mobile station (""659") and  EP1

Smartphones Author Senado Federal  Licence CC BY-SA 2.0   Source  Wikipedia Smartphone Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Birss)  Warner Music UK Ltd and another v Tunein Inc [2019] EWHC 3374 (Ch) (18 Dec 2019) The claimants, and the groups they represent, own or hold the exclusive licences to copyright in sound recordings of music. Together, they account for more than half the market for digital sales of recorded music in the UK and about 43% globally.   If a radio station wishes to play a record in the claimant's repertoire it needs a licence from the claimant which it can obtain directly from one of the claimants or indirectly from a collecting society. As most radio stations broadcast primarily to listeners who can receive their radio signals those licences tend to be restricted to the country in which they are located.  It is now possible for radio stations to broadcast over the internet. Some stations such as the BBC broadcast over the a