NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Michael Tappin KC) Nicoventures Trading Ltd v Philip Morris Products SA and another [2023] EWHC 854 (Pat) (18 April 2023 This was a claim by Nicoventures Trading Ltd ("Nicoventures") for the revocation of European patent (UK) 3266323 B1  ("323") and European patent (UK) 3741225 B1  ("225") held by Philip Morris Products SA ("Philip Morris") on grounds of obviousness and added matter  and a counterclaim by Philip Morris against Nicoventures and its parent company British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd ("BAT") for infringement of 323   The parties had agreed that if claim 1 of 323 was obvious then so too would claim 1 of 225.  The allegedly infringing products were  ‘glo’ tobacco heating devices  and their associated consumables.  The action and counterclaim came on before Mr Michael Tappin KC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 20, 21, 22 and 27 March 2023.  Mr Tappin handed down his judgmen

Author Rob Farrow   Licence CC BY-SA 2.0 Deed   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Business and Property Courts, Intellectual Property (Chancery) Mr Justice Zacaroli PG Systems Europe Ltd. and another v Aughton and another   [2023] EWHC 581 (22 March 2023) This was an action for copyright infringement and breach of confidence. It was brought by a software house against its former director and programmer. The claimants were a US company called Productivity-Quality Systems, Inc. ("PQS") and an English company called PQ Systems Europe Ltd. ("PQE").  The transcript refers to them collectively as "PQ".  PQE was not a subsidiary of PQS but it was founded, owned and run by the same person. When that founder died both companies passed into the hands of his successor.    The first defendant, Jeff Aughton ("Mr Aughton"), worked for PQE from 1989 to 2015  On leaving that company, Mr Aughton developed software packages that were similar to PQE's. 

Author Billreid   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0 Deed   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Puter House, Court of Session (Lord Braid) D & M Winchester Ltd. v Coleburn Distillery Ltd    [2023] ScotCS CSOH_66, [2023] CSOH 66 This was an appeal by D & M Winchester Ltd. ("Winchester") from the decision of Mark Bryant on behalf of the Registrar of Trade Marks in Re COLEBURN trade mark D & M Winchester Ltd, v Coleburn Distillers Ltd .  BL O/923/22 29 Oct 2022 under  s76 (2)  of the Trade Marks Act 1994.   According to para [11] of the judgment, this was only the second appeal to the Court of Session from the Trade Marks Registry under that provision. The first had been    CCHG Ltd t/a Vaporized v Vapouriz Ltd 2017] ScotCS CSOH_100, 2017 SLT 907. Proceedings in the Trade Marks Registry Winchester had applied to register the word COLEBURN as a UK trade mark for various goods and services in classes 32, 33, 39, 40. 41, 43 and 44  under trade mark number UK3600183 .  Coleburn

  Jane Lamber t Patents Court  (Mr Justice Meade) G ilead Sciences Inc and another NuCana PLC  [2023] EWHC 611 (Pat) (21 March 2023) This was an action by Gilead Sciences Inc. and its British subsidiary Gilead Sciences Ltd ("Gilead") for revocation of two European Patents (UK) that had been granted to NuCana Plc ("NoCana"), namely  EP 2 955 190 B1 (“EP190”)  and   EP 3 904 365 B1 (“EP365”) .  NuCana complained that Gilead's product  sofosbuvir  infringed its patents. Mr Justice Meade, who tried the action, could see no real defence to the counterclaim if the claims of the patents were valid. Grounds of Revocation Gilead sought revocation of the patents on the following grounds: Added matter in that the  Markush group definitions of the claims  of the patents are not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application; Lack of plausibility in that the Patents do not plausibly disclose any technical contribution common to substantially all the claimed