NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Sir Anthony Mann) Stitch Editing Ltd v TikTok Information Technologies UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 1167 (Ch) (17 May 2023) This was an appeal against the decision of Ms June Ralph in which she upheld an opposition by Tik Tok Information Technologies UK Ltd. ("TikTok") to an application by Stitch Editing Ltd. ("Stitch") to register STITCH as a trade mark for various services in class 41 (see Re STITCH, Tik Tok Information Technologies UK Ltd. v Stitch Editing Ltd . BL O/716/22 24 Aug 2022). The appeal came on before Sir Anthony Mann on 29 March 2023 who handed down judgment on 17 May 2023.  By para [47] of his judgment, Sir Anthony allowed the appeal.  He remitted the case to Ms Ralph for a fresh decision in the light of his findings (see Stitch Editing Ltd v TikTok Information Technologies UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 1167 (Ch) (17 May 2023)). The Application Stitch applied to register STITCH as a trade mark for the following services in class 41:

  Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Arnold, Nugee and Warby) Sandoz Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company [2023] EWCA Civ 472 (4 May 2023) This was an appeal by Bristol Myers Squibb Ireland ("BMS") against Mr Justice Meade's judgment in    Sandoz Ltd and another v Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland (Unlimited) Company [2022] EWHC 822 (Pat) (7 April 2022) which I discussed in  Patents - Sandoz Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squibb   on 28 Aug 2022.  In that judgment, his lordship held that  European patent (UK) 1 427 415 B1 (“the patent”)  was invalid for lack of plausibility and technical contribution.  Permission to appeal against Mr Justice Meade's judgment was granted by Lord Justice Lewison. The appeal was heard by Lord Justices Arnold, Nugee and Warby on 19 and 20 April 2022. They handed down judgment on 4 May 202. Their lordships unanimously dismissed the appeal (see Sandoz Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Comp

A Huawei Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer ("DSLAM") Author Jnnis Walter Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Arnold, Nugee and Birss) A daptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment Inc v British Telecommunications Plc [2023] EWCA Civ 451 (26 April 2023) This was an appeal by  Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Incorporated ("ASSIA")  against the judgment of Mrs Justice Falk in  Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment Inc v British Telecommunications Plc [2022] EWHC 1707 (Ch) (6 July 2022). Her ladyship dismissed ASSIA's claim for declarations on the construction of a patent licence granted by ASSIA to British Telecommunications Plc ("BT" ).  ASSIA's appeal came on before Lords Justices Arnold, Nugee and Birss on 29 March 2023.  By their judgment which was handed down on 26 April 2022, their lordships unanimously dismissed the appeal (see Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment Inc v B

Author Anthony M   Licence CC BY 2.0   Source Flickr Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Arnold, Nugee and Birss)  Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others [2023] EWCA Civ 438 (25 April 2023) This was an appeal from Mr Justice Meade's judgment in Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 3121 (Pat) (25 Nov 2021) in which the learned judge revoked  EP 2 093 953 B1 ,  EP 2 464 065 B1  and  EP 2 592 779 B1  for a method for transmitting and receiving control information through PDCCH.  The action had been trial "C" of a series of trials between the three Panoptis companies (Optis Cellular Technology LLC, Optis Wireless Technology LLC and Unwired Planet International Ltd. ("Optis")) and Apple Inc. and its subsidiaries ("Apple") over the terms of a FRAND licence of the claimants' portfolio of allegedly standard-essential patents. The Appeal Mr Justice Meade had held

Broadway Author Richard Slessor Licence CC BY-SA 2.0 Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Recorder Michaels) Hayman-Joyce Property Ltd v Hayman-Joyce Broadway LLP and another [2023] EWHC 1028 (IPEC) (2 May 2023) This was an action for trade mark and copyright infringement and passing off. There was also a counterclaim for invalidation of the trade mark. The claimant and first defendant were estate agencies that had been founded by James Hayman-Joyce.  James's son Thomas managed the claimant.  The second defendant who had been James's business partner managed the first defendant.  The trade marks HAYMAN JOYCE and HAYMAN-JOYCE had been registered by the claimant for various services in classes 35 and 36 under trade mark number UK3350970 in the face of vigorous opposition from the second defendant on 8 Oct 2020. The Dispute Relations between the parties began to deteriorate after 2010. There was disagreement over the use of the HAYMAN

Author DebashisM   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Pat Treacy) Photobooth Props Ltd and another v NEPBH Ltd and others   [2023] EWHC 766 (IPEC) 25 April 2023 This was an application by the claimant for an order that unless the defendants make an interim payment by 16:00 on the 7th day from the date of the order, the defence of all defendants will be struck out. The obligation on the defendants to make an interim payment was an order by Ms Pat Treacy sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court at a case management conference on 2 Feb 2023. The application for the unless order was also made to Ms Treacy who decided it without a hearing on 25 April 2023 (see  Photobooth Props Ltd and another v NEPBH Ltd and others [2023] EWHC 755 (IPEC) (25 April 2023)). Importance of this Case The reason for discussing this case is that interim costs orders are rare in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC") .