NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Meade)  Sandoz Ltd and another v Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland (Unlimited) Company  [2022] EWHC 822 (Pat) (7 April 2022) These were two separate actions for the revocation of a  European patent (UK)   1 427 415 B1 (“the patent”) .  The patent was held by Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland (Unlimited) Company ("BMS") and the proceedings were brought by  Sandoz Limited (“Sandoz”) and   Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (“Teva”). BMS  counterclaimed against both claimants for infringement which was admitted subject to the validity of the patent. The actions came on for trial before Mr Justice Mrade between 31 Jan and 10 Feb 2022.  By para [257] of his judgment of 7 April 2022 he held that the patent was invalid for lack of plausibility and technical contribution ( see Sandoz Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squib Holdings Ireland (Unlimited) Company [2022] EWHC 822 (Pat) (7 April 2022)). The Patent The patent was granted for "L

Jane Lambert Chancery Division, Intellectual Property List (Mr Ian Karet)  Revive A Phone Ltd v WeFix [2022] EWHC 2195 (Ch) (19 Aug 2022) This was an appeal against the decision of the hearing officer, Ms Rosie Le Breton, of 9 Sept 2021 invalidating the word mark WEFIX  and the blue and white device mark that appears above. The appeal came on before Mr Ian Karet on 30 June 2022.  By his judgment of 19 Aug 2022, the learned deputy judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the hearing officer's decision (see  Revive A Phone Ltd v WeFix [2022] EWHC 2195 (Ch) (19 Aug 2022)). Ms Le Breton invalidated those trade marks under s.47 (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 . That subsection provides that the registration of a trade mark may be declared invalid on the ground that there is an earlier trade mark in relation to which the conditions set out in s.5 (1), (2) or (3) obtain unless the proprietor of that earlier trade mark or other earlier right has consented to the registration.  The applicat