tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-156528822012-02-02T21:43:47.518ZNews and comment on intellectual property, technology, media, entertainment and competition law from the UK, EC and around the world. Updates and supplements our resources at www.ipit-update.com. Call me at "nipclaw" on Skype or +44 (0)870 990 5081 Site Feed http://nipclaw.blogspot.com/atom.xml and http://feeds.feedburner.com/ NipcIp/itUpdateJane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.comBlogger5891100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-574693659170400342012-01-29T08:35:00.000Z2012-01-29T08:45:29.705Z

This was a decision by Mrs Recorder Michaels who sits as an appointed person in appeals from hearing officers in the Trade Marks Registry under s.77 of the Trade Marks Act 1977. She is therefore used to oppositions under s.5 and applications for invalidity under s.47 (2) of that Act where there will have been no oral evidence and in many cases no hearing.   You will find the transcript of her

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-17570504592956005292012-01-28T22:20:00.000Z2012-01-29T05:52:00.136Z

This is the second appeal in litigation that has come before Mr. Justice Floyd and the Court of Appeal on two occasions (see MMI Research Ltd v CellXion Ltd and Others [2009] Info TLR 35, [2009] EWHC 418 (Pat) (11 March 2009) and MMI Research Ltd v CellXion Ltd and Others [2011] EWHC 426 (Pat) (7 March 2011). At the first trial the judge held that the patent in suit was valid and that it had been

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-1237058408769397352012-01-27T21:25:00.000Z2012-01-27T21:26:44.705Z

In 32Red Plc v WHG (International) Ltd and Others [2012] EWCA Civ 19 (24 Jan 2012) the Court of Appeal allowed a cross appeal by the claimant, 32Red Ltd. ("Red") against Mr. Justice Henderson's finding at first instance [2011] EWHC 62 (Ch) (21 Jan 2011) [2011] ETMR 21that Red's number mark had not been infringed but dismissed the appeal by the defendants, the William Hill group of companies ("

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-911961602820667562012-01-25T01:11:00.001Z2012-01-25T08:49:11.529Z

A few years ago it became possible for photo libraries to sniff the Internet for unlicensed copies of their photographs. When they found one they demanded pretty steep damages for copyright infringement. Often the owners of the websites were decent people who had acted in the sincere belief that they were entitled to use the snaps. Frequent questions at my IP clinics were: "Have they got a case?"

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-74616820755202879272012-01-17T10:48:00.000Z2012-01-17T17:04:38.268Z

This article was prompted by the decision of Mr. Phil Thorpe in Farr v Orbis Corp. (No. 2) BL/0/469/11 23 Dec 2011 where the hearing officer refused to award the defendant costs off the scale published in Tribunal Practice Note ("TPN") 2/2000 as amended by TPN 4/2007 against a litigant in person.  As the time for appealing has not yet run out, and as I represented the claimant at the costs

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-70468919299900990482012-01-15T13:21:00.000Z2012-01-16T08:50:05.946Z

In our very first NIPC newsletter which we published in June 1997 I wrote a case note on Mr. Justice Lloyd's decision in Creation Records Ltd. and Others v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] EMLR 444, [1997] EWHC Ch 370, (1997) 16 Tr LR 544. In that case Mr. Noel Gallagher of Oasis and others applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain The Sun from offering for sale and selling a poster of

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-36136430909370897252012-01-08T12:21:00.001Z2012-01-14T09:21:08.119Z

In Forensic Telecommunications Services Ltd v West Yorkshire Police and Another [2011] EWHC 2892 (Ch) (9 November 2011) the claimant company ("FTS") complained that the West Yorkshire Police and one of the force's former detective constables had infringed its copyright, alternatively its database right, in certain tables of data referred to as "the PM Abs Lists" and had misused information

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-23525341057047113912012-01-05T17:32:00.000Z2012-01-05T17:48:06.093Z

Most of us will have eaten so much over Christmas that food is likely to be one of the last things on our minds. Nevertheless, I was put in mind of food yesterday by two things. First, a Linkedin connection with Aunty Bernadette George, the owner of "Smokey Bites" whose African and Caribbean catering service is famous throughout London and beyond. Secondly, I read Judge Pelling QC's decision in

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-24820238692218409232012-01-05T00:45:00.000Z2012-01-05T00:49:05.592Z

The first of Professor Ian Hargreaves's recommendations in his report Digital Opportunity was that "Government should ensure that development of the IP System is driven as far as possible by objective evidence." In carrying out his feasibility study on a digital copyright exchange Richard Hooper has called for evidence on: (1) whether the copyright system really is unfit for purpose; and (2)

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-15371725041737535632012-01-02T10:02:00.013Z2012-01-04T23:42:21.390Z

It is some years since I last discussed software patents ("Software Patents: January Patents Ltd.'s Application", 16 Jan 2009, "Software Patents: New Guidance from the IPO", 29 Dec 2008 and "Patents: Software Protection after Symbian and Bilski" 11 Nov 2008) and Judge Birss QC's decision in Re Halliburton Energy Services Inc [2011] EWHC 2508 (Pat) (5 Oct 2011) and Mr. Justice Floyd's in Re

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-4761566429046517322011-12-11T10:30:00.008Z2011-12-11T13:40:24.418Z

In Injunctions against ISPs I discussed Mr. Justice Arnold's judgment in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation & Others v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 2714 (Ch) (26 Oct 2011) where he ordered BT to use Cleenfeed to hinder its subscribers from accessing the website known as Newzbin II. That judgment was applauded by those who lobby on behalf of the film, recording, games,

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-87352887322564637822011-11-22T18:01:00.006Z2011-11-23T08:48:57.136Z

The Court of Appeal's decision in Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH and Others v Carefusion 303 Inc [2011] EWCA Civ 1288 (8 Nov 2011) is likely to make life just a little bit harder for patentees, especially the individual inventors and small businesses that I tend to advise and represent. It's tough enough trying to enforce a patent because a common if not the most usual defence is that the patent

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-69545388721416607112011-11-09T10:32:00.013Z2011-11-11T15:21:08.093Z

In its second intellectual property appeal (the first being Lucasfilm v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39 see my case note "Lucasfilm v Ansoworth The Supreme Court's First IP Appeal" 31 July 2011 IP/IT Update) the United Kingdom Supreme Court had to consider the way in which the requirement of industrial applicability extends to a patent for biological material. One of the conditions for the grant of a

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-79745566500393144432011-11-06T08:15:00.039Z2011-11-06T20:03:03.162Z

On 26 Oct 2011 Mr. Justice Arnold ordered British Telecommunications Plc to:"adopt the following technical means to block or attempt to block access by its customers to the website known as Newzbin2 currently accessible at www.newzbin.com, its domains and sub-domains and including payments.newzbin.com and any other IP address or URL whose sole or predominant purpose is to enable or facilitate

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-69462473419057282702011-10-19T04:01:00.016+01:002011-11-03T09:33:01.411Z

In PlentymoreFirsh BL 0/029/11 (1 Feb 2011), the hearing office Mr. David Landau dismissed an application by Plentyoffish Media Inc. for the invalidation of UK trade mark number 2,453,920. The mark had been registered for dating services in class 47 with effect from 27 April 2007. The application was brought under s.47 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 on the ground that the applicant had an "earlier

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-32470024153081110022011-09-03T08:53:00.003+01:002011-09-03T10:25:37.897+01:00

I have spent the morning reading a fascinating article by Professor Mark Lemley entitled "The Myth of the Sole Inventor" which you can download free of charge from the Social Science Research Network. Prof. Lemley holds the Neukom chair at Stamford University and, despite the assertion of one of his detractors that he is not a patent attorney, he is also a partner of Durie Tangri which is a San

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-45996302627093030762011-08-22T16:20:00.006+01:002011-08-22T18:43:54.239+01:00

Compared to Germany, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland we don't do very well in the European patent application stakes but there are two large European countries that do even worse than us, namely Spain and Italy. According to the European Patent Office there were 4,088 patent applications from Italy in 2010 and 1,436 from Spain compared to 27,354 from Germany, 9,530 from France, 6,742

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-82416181962900716752011-08-13T09:05:00.012+01:002011-08-13T15:38:22.791+01:00

"Litigate patents in Northern Ireland? Yes, it can be done" was the headline of the PatLit blog for its case note on Siemens A.G. v Seagate Technology (Ireland) Ltd [2011] NICh 12 as if the author of that piece had seen and heard a talking monkey. No discussion of the case other than the result, an aside from the judge and the delayed publication of the judgment. In a circular to Solo IP

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-4886152971256005752011-08-11T02:43:00.007+01:002011-08-11T11:14:11.297+01:00

In Convatec Ltd. and others v Smith & Nephew Healthcare Ltd and Others [2011] EWHC 2039 (Pat) (27 July 2011), His Honour Judge Birss QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, tried a claim for patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation of the patent in suit on the grounds of anticipation, obviousness and insufficiency. The invention for which the patent was granted was a moist wound

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-78632312986005214802011-08-07T19:29:00.015+01:002011-08-08T11:15:39.410+01:00

Art 3 (1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society ("the Information Society Directive") required EU member states to "provide authors with the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-40000004405752599572011-08-05T01:30:00.004+01:002011-08-05T03:14:15.611+01:00

"King's Moll Reno'd in Wolsey's Home Town." Thus an American newspaper reported the divorce of the Duchess of Windsor from second husband Ernest Aldrich Simpson at Ipswich Assizes. This witty pithy sentence imported a new verb into Cisatlantic English, namely "to Reno" for which there is still no equivalent, alluded to the family law of the state of Nevada and Tudor history. Yes, Henry VIII's

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-39556802771147438982011-08-03T06:44:00.023+01:002011-08-03T14:45:43.734+01:00

In Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Others v Newzbin Ltd. [2010] EWHC 608 (Ch), [2010] ECC 13, [2010] FSR 21, [2010] EMLR 17, [2010] ECDR 8, members of the Motion Picture Association of America Inc. ("the MPAA") sued an English company called Newzbin Ltd. ("Newzbin") in the Chancery Division for copyright infringement. Newzbin operated a website through which subscribers could search

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-34778649544719999492011-07-31T16:34:00.018+01:002011-08-01T12:41:37.501+01:00

Had Mr. Andrew Ainsworth started to make "imperial stormtrooper" helmets when Star Wars was first released instead of in 2004 it ought to have been possible to have stopped him. As Lord Walker observed in paragraph 2 of his judgment in Lucasfilm Ltd. and Others v Ainsworth and Another [2011] UKSC 39, Mr Lucas’s concept of the Imperial Stormtroopers as threatening characters in “fascist

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-86207014994008238702011-07-16T08:05:00.006+01:002011-07-16T09:42:57.095+01:00

Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd. v AstraZeneca AB [2011] EWHC 1831 (Pat) (15 July 2011) raises an interesting point on the interpretation of claims. To be more precise "Swiss style claims".Swiss style claims get their name from the legal advice of the Swiss Federal Intellectual Property Office of 30 May 1984 (OJ EPO 581) on the patentability of compounds used in the manufacture of a medicine for the treatment

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-82542502147778129292011-07-14T07:01:00.016+01:002011-07-14T10:37:51.139+01:00

We have an adversarial system of civil litigation in England and Wales as do most other English speaking countries. In an adversarial system the parties choose the issues over which they wish to fight and produce the evidence that they want the tribunal to consider. By contrast, most of the rest of the world has an inquisitorial system where the tribunal leads an inquiry into the facts. Each

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-2409200372119850302011-07-06T19:20:00.004+01:002011-07-06T21:37:30.588+01:00

In my case note on Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 303 (29 March 2011) of 2 April 2011 in this blog and in my note on Schutz (UK) Ltd and Another v Delta Containers Ltd and Another [2011] EWHC 1173 (Pat) (5 May 2011) in IP North West I referred to the practice of cross-bottling. That practice has already given rise to a patent infringement claim againstWerit (UK) Ltd. ("Werit")

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-83366919911092742172011-07-01T12:22:00.011+01:002011-07-01T15:43:54.391+01:00

This is not something they teach in law schools. Much less is it advertised to clients. But in my experience and I daresay that of most other intellectual property practitioners many if not most disputes are resolved on procedural points rather than lofty principles of substantive law. Judge Birss QC's decision in Wuxi Suntech Power Co. Ltd. v Tittmann Solar GmbH [2011] EWPCC 17 (3 May 2011)

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-32411872052766437242011-06-29T07:33:00.016+01:002011-06-30T11:43:59.749+01:00

The last few years have seen the emergence of the "non-practising entity" ("NPE"). An NPE treats intellectual property not as a shield to protect investment in research and development, design, marketing or other intellectual assets but as an investment in its own right. As often as not an NPE uses its IP to extract royalties, licence fees or damages from alleged infringers. NPE have been a

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-92166828571317481562011-06-24T17:31:00.014+01:002011-06-24T20:14:14.481+01:00

We have had quite a few reviews of intellectual property law recently. They include the following though I could have listed a number of others:Digital Britain Final Report in June 2009;Innovation Nation in March 2008;Gowers Review of Intellectual Property in Nov 2006;DTI Innovation Report – Competing in the Global Economy: the Innovation Challenge in Dec 2003;IPAC “The Enforcement of Patent

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-15433141202134320342011-06-10T15:12:00.007+01:002011-06-10T16:59:04.368+01:00

The reason I am writing about Araci v Fallon [2011] EWCA Civ 668 (4 June 2011) is that it is very rare indeed for the Court of Appeal to interfere with the exercise of a judge's discretion when considering an interim injunction application. As Lord Justice Jackson accepted at paragraph [64] the Court of Appeal only interferes with the judge's exercise of discretion in relation to an interim

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-75166722240373704832011-06-06T09:50:00.004+01:002011-06-06T11:32:13.773+01:00

The challenge by the Prince of Hanover to the decision of the First Board of Appeal upholding the examiner's decision to dismiss the Prince's application to register his family coat of arms as a trade mark is a peach of a case. Unfortunately, the transcript of T-397/09 Prinz von Hannover v OHIM [2011] T-EUECJ 397/09 (25 May 2011) is in French. No English or even Anglophone judges or lawyers

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-46093694267064265982011-05-12T13:32:00.000+01:002011-05-13T21:23:36.159+01:00

The importance of Westwood v Knight [2011] EWPCC 11 (11 May 2011) is that it was the first trial under the new rules for the Patents County Court and thus the first opportunity for the court to consider the cost capping rules in the context of an entire case. The trial, which I blogged in my IP North West blog because the defendant came from Manchester, was an action for infringement of trade

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-9433918347488136692011-04-29T10:29:00.008+01:002011-07-18T17:25:17.715+01:00

Despite such setbacks as the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the incompatibility of the proposed European Patents Court with EU Law and the objections of the Italian and Spanish governments to an EU patent (see my case note on the CJEU's decision), the European Commission has proposed two regulations for a single European patent for the other 25 member states (see the

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-6352257961947586912011-04-29T08:54:00.004+01:002011-04-29T09:36:57.662+01:00

The recommendation of the Intellectual Property Court Users' Committee that was not implemented on 1 Oct 2010 when the New Patents County Court Rules came into effect was a £500,000 limit to claims. The reason for the late implementation of that proposal is that it had a mixed reception. According to the Committee"Some approved of the Working Group’s proposal. Some thought that there should be

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-44420680017667243622011-04-28T22:26:00.003+01:002011-04-29T05:05:48.774+01:00

After the party comes the bill. In this final episode of the Media CAT saga (Media CAT v Adams No, 4 [2011] EPC 10) His Honour Judge Birss QC decided who was to pay for episodes 1, 2 and 3. Or, to be more accurate, whether the solicitors who brought this litigation and their principal Andrew Crossley, should pay for them under s.51 (6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981,This sub-section provides:"In

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-16611381155182059312011-04-09T23:38:00.003+01:002011-04-10T09:43:20.345+01:00

In my article "Divided by a common language: US and UK patent law" which was published in Science, People & Politics (April to June 2011) I noted that one of the differences between US and UK patent law was that 35 USC 102 (b) of the US act permits an application for a US patent even where the invention has been described in a publication or application for a foreign patent that has been made in

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-87442894737327334722011-04-05T08:26:00.004+01:002011-04-05T08:29:45.144+01:00

“Designing the Future” is the theme of this year’s World Intellectual Property Day 2011. In his message, Francis Gurry, the Director General of the WIPO, said: “Design touches every aspect of human creativity. It shapes the things we appreciate from traditional crafts to consumer electronics; from buildings and bicycles to fashion and furniture. Design has been called “intelligence made visible

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-69379273775439320992011-04-02T10:44:00.012+01:002011-07-18T17:41:35.185+01:00

The main point of Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 303 (29 March 2011) was whether a patent for an intermediate bulk carrier - essentially a large plastic bottle tightly encased in a tight metal cage constructed from tubes flattened at each join - could be infringed by inserting the bottle into a cage constructed from differently connected members.The relevant claim was as

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-50712507053874365412011-03-31T23:42:00.009+01:002011-04-01T01:02:16.632+01:00

According to Al-Jazeera a leaked copy of the Hargreaves Report has recommended the break up and partial privatization of the Intellectual Property Office.If the report is implemented, patent registration for the United Kingdom is to be abolished altogether on the ground that there is already a perfectly adequate service operated for the UK by the European Patent Office in Munich;in line with the

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-88943882947369989102011-03-24T20:59:00.007Z2011-03-24T22:40:59.660Z

In the Hedgehog Golf Company Ltd v Hauser [2011] EWHC 689 (Ch) (23 March 2011), Mr. Justice Newey granted the claimant Hedgehog a perpetual injunction from properly disclosing confidential information. in interlocutory proceedings "confidential information" had been defined as "confidential information relating to patent number 1625827 and all other research activities, inventions, secret

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-35486649628833486952011-03-21T13:11:00.003Z2011-03-21T13:25:35.634Z

Lord Justice Jacob will retire from the Court of Appeal to take up the Hugh Laddie Chair at University College London (see "Sir Robin Jacob to lead IP Law at UCL").In accordance with tradition, valedictory speeches will be offered in the Lord Chief Justice's Court at 09:45 tomorrow, 21 March 2011.He was not one of my easiest tribunals but he was one that I respected more than most. A very

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-87480442109087021502011-03-08T07:54:00.005Z2011-07-19T00:49:36.367+01:00

There are two new judgments from the Patents County Court on BAILII (British and Irish Legal Information Institute): Deakin and Another (t/a Faith Image Source) v Card Rax Ltd and Others [2011] EWPCC 3 (1 Feb 2011) and National Guild Of Removers & Storers Ltd v Jones and Another (t/as ATR Removals)[2011] EWPCC 4 (9 Feb 2011).DeakinDeakin was the trial of an action and counterclaim for damages for

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-62378118749291460332011-02-22T19:48:00.003Z2011-02-22T21:08:15.256Z

I mentioned this litigation on the 12 and 21 Dec 2010. In my latter case note I reported that the judge had found claims by Media CAT Ltd. against 27 defendants and listed them to come on before him on 17 January 2011. I advised those defendants to take legal advice and if possible appear by counsel and that is precisely what most of them did.Shortly before the 17 the claimant's solicitor tried

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-9484177539229905962011-01-23T11:00:00.009Z2012-01-27T21:52:51.614Z

This was Mr. Justice Henderson's judgment in the trial of an action between two Gibraltar based online gambling concerns. The claimant in 32Red Plc v WHG (International) Ltd and others [2011] EWHC 62 (Ch) (21 Jan 2011) had sued for infringement of Community trade mark 2814424 and British trade mark 2509861. The defendants had counterclaimed for invalidation of those registrations. The signs

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-14907727807201002272011-01-22T16:36:00.009Z2011-01-22T18:24:45.898Z

This was an appeal against the following judgments of Mr Justice Floyd: Nokia GmbH v Ipcom GmbH & Co KG [2009] EWHC 3482 (Pat) (18 Jan 2010) ("the main judgment");[2009] EWHC 3034 (Pat) (20 Nov 2009) ("the first amendment judgment"); and[2010] EWHC 789 (Pat) (31 March 2009) ("the second amendment judgment").The litigation concerned two patents which the trial judge described as follows:"The two

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-67116141285825723552011-01-12T19:20:00.007Z2011-10-05T16:47:56.103+01:00

I should first like to wish my readers a happy New Year. Good riddance to the old one which was awful. After the emergency budget in June virtually every SME in England seemed to go to earth. The explanation is not hard to fathom. Litigation is funded largely on tick. So, too, is new product design and development. With the banks rebuilding their balance sheets and making only the payments that

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-44077270021524514772010-12-21T12:52:00.005Z2010-12-21T14:47:34.926Z

I am grateful to Mr John Rogers for bringing Media CAT Ltd. v Billington [2010] EWPCC 18 (17 Dec 2010) to my attention.It appears that Judge Birss QC and his clerk reviewed all the cases in his list and found 13 more that had been brought by Media CAT in September and October plus another 14 in November. All involve similar issues to the cases I mentioned in my case note of 12 Dec 2010. Many of

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-2564352682838923372010-12-18T15:43:00.006Z2010-12-19T14:15:28.674Z

An interesting little domain name case that is curious in several respects: first, that it was brought in the courts at all rather than before an administrative panel appointed by one of the UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) dispute resolution service providers; secondly, that it was brought in England when none of the parties appears to have anything to do with England,

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-23592399240142682712010-12-12T03:05:00.009Z2010-12-12T10:18:26.807Z

In Media C.A.T. Ltd. v A and others [2010] EWPCC 17, His Honour Judge Birss QC had 8 requests for judgment. The particulars of claim in each case alleged that:"The defendant, someone authorised by him to use his internet connection, or someone who gained access to the defendant's internet connection due to the router to that connections having no or no adequate security was at all material times

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-58059449530839475792010-12-04T10:16:00.003Z2010-12-04T10:21:45.184Z

According to the knowledgebase of its website TVCatchup is an “internet television platform” which enables subscribers to watch live television on a computer or mobile device from anywhere in the UK. In ITV Broadcasting Ltd and Others v TV Catch Up Ltd [2010] EWHC 3063 (Ch) (25 Nov 2010) Mr. Justice Kitchin described that company’s activities at paragraphs [3] to [4] of his judgment as follows:

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-50330043454210001312010-11-28T16:48:00.002Z2010-11-28T16:56:19.608Z

In The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others v Meltwater Holding BV and Others [2010] EWHC 3099 (Ch) (26 Nov 2010) Mrs. Justice Proudman had to decide whether the customers of a commercial media monitoring service needed a licence from the copyright licensing agency of the British newspaper industry to receive emailed reports containing data that had been extracted by the monitoring service

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-25525971662832333012010-11-27T13:34:00.004Z2010-11-27T16:43:31.002Z

This appeal was a rare inventor’s compensation case. S.7 (2) (a) of the Patents Act 1977 provides that a patent for an invention may be granted primarily to the inventor or joint inventors. However, this provision is trumped by paragraph (b) where a person by virtue of any enactment or rule of law or by virtue of an enforceable term of any agreement entered into with the inventor before the

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-14304374025888768042010-11-27T02:06:00.009Z2010-11-27T15:44:43.022Z

Save that the claimant is a well-known fashion designer, Westwood v Knight [2010] EWPCC 16 (19 Nov 2010) is a bog standard case management conference in a trade mark and copyright infringement and passing off claim. The reason why this case deserves attention is that the Judge gave some useful guidance on the following issues Directions for transfer to the Patents County CourtSkeleton arguments

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-50125410409832196072010-11-16T18:15:00.006Z2010-11-16T19:35:26.974Z

A super injunction is one in which an anonymized applicant is granted an injunction restraining an anonymized respondent from doing specified but unpublishable things and further restraining the respondent and others from publishing the fact that the injunction had been sought and obtained.In Ntuli v Donald [2010] EWCA Civ 1276 (16 Nov 2010) the appellant Adakini Ntuli sought to overturn an

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-12152593114220296692010-11-13T23:34:00.008Z2010-11-14T02:19:28.055Z

This is a very useful authority for the following points: the jurisdiction of the Patents County Court in trade mark infringement and passing-off claims; the basis for assessment of damages for trade mark infringement and passing-off; the basis to be applied where there is no loss of a sale; and the procedure to be followed when the damages awarded exceed the

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-10804482201163480652010-11-13T00:13:00.007Z2010-11-13T01:11:37.273Z

Abbott Laboratories Ltd v Medinol Ltd [2010] EWHC 2865 (Pat) (12 Nov 2010) was a claim for a declaration of non-infringement and revocation of three European patents for cardiac stents and a counterclaim for infringement. The patents were derived from a US patent. The corresponding European patent had been divided into a number of divisional patents. These had been the subject of opposition

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-58269029919239004122010-11-12T11:29:00.000Z2010-11-12T11:29:06.955Z

Global Copyright Reform: A View From The South In Response To Lessig

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-24859527060166538262010-11-10T17:53:00.004Z2010-11-10T20:38:23.353Z

This decision of Lord Turnbull in EFH Technologies Ltd. and another v Reytium Technology FZC and another [2010] ScotCS CSOH_143 (29 Oct 2010) highlights differences between the procedures in Scotland for obtaining the equivalent of interim injunctive relief and those of the rest of the United Kingdom.This was an application for an interim interdict (the equivalent of an interim injunction) to

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-42403422778102264602010-11-10T00:53:00.007Z2010-11-27T15:55:34.874Z

On 31 July 2009, a working group consisting of the three Patents Court judges, His Honour Judge Fysh QC and representatives of the patent bar, CIPA, ITMA and various other interest groups published a report on Proposals for Reform of the Patents County Court. For those who are not familiar with the English legal system, there are two tiers of civil courts of first instance in England and Wales:

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-40199322209157107112010-11-09T14:03:00.006Z2010-11-27T16:45:45.354Z

One of my worries when the Intellectual Property Users Committee announced its Proposals for Reform of the Patents County Court was that the proposed costs cap on intellectual property litigation in the PCC would be scuppered by transfers to the High Court or routine arguments that a party had behaved badly. My fears have been allayed to a certain extent by Judge Birrs QC's pledge to make the new

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-71849841037639743032010-11-06T08:02:00.003Z2010-11-06T08:51:43.519Z

Contract KG Bominflot Bunkergesellschaft fur Mineraloele mbH & Co v Petroplus Marketing AG (The Mercini Lady) [2010] EWCA Civ 1145 Copyright Crosstown Music Company 1 LLC v Rive Droite Music Ltd and Others [2010] EWCA Civ 1222Licensing Softlanding Systems, Inc v KDP Software Ltd and another [2010] EWCA Civ 1172 Patents Grimme Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co KG v Scott (t/a Scotts Potato Machinery) [

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-66675707075972571312010-10-31T11:07:00.009Z2010-11-27T15:40:29.818Z

Possible Correlation between the Cost of Enforcement and the Number of British Patent Applications In November 2003 the Intellectual Property Advisory Committee published the report The Enforcement of Patent Rights. On page 50 of the report the Committee compared the cost of patent infringement litigation in the UK, USA, France, Germany and the Netherlands. It found that the costs in Patents

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-62809059572697917492010-01-17T08:28:00.007Z2010-01-17T12:52:50.418Z

The first decision from the Comptroller for 2010 offers an interesting discussion on how to assess an invention's technical contribution when applying the Aerotel/Macrossan and Symbian guidelines.In Fisher Rosemount Systenms Inc. Application BL 0/003/10 12 Jan 2010 the applicant appealed against the examiner's report that the claims of the invention were excluded from patentability because they

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-73305999372340552982010-01-15T10:14:00.007Z2010-01-15T11:02:14.313Z

I have just finished reading Chapter 24 of Sir Rupert Jackson's final report on costs (Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report) which was published yesterday. It is a good report and I welcome its proposals for intellectual property. However, back in July 2009 I proposed a more radical solution to the IP Bar Association and the working group of the Intellectual Property Court Users'

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-66788376878459712652010-01-14T09:09:00.004Z2010-01-14T11:40:40.571Z

In Evans and another v Focal Point Fires Plc [2009] EWHC 2794 Mr. Justice Peter Smith granted summary judgment to the claimants in a claim for passing off. The claimants, who had sold fire surrounds in partnership under the name "Firecraft" since 1991, sued one of the UK's largest manufacturers of gas fires for marketing its products under the registered trade mark FIRECRAFT since May 2001. The

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-83587354655278676742010-01-14T07:38:00.005Z2010-01-14T13:29:08.497Z

A table of the top 50 US patent filings for 2009 appears in a press release by Kivett & Co, Communications based on data analysed by IFI Patent Intelligence. Top of the list is IBM with 4,914 patent applications followed by Samsung (3,611), Microsoft (2,906), Canon (2,206) and Panasonic (1,829).The presence of a Korean company as number 2 followed by Japanese companies in 4th and 5th slots has

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-35709041770548164612010-01-13T11:04:00.004Z2010-01-13T14:06:50.084Z

This is another case on Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. The main issue was whether a claim in England for infringement of a European patent should be stayed while an application for a declaration of non-infringement proceeded in Sweden under art 27 (1) of that Regulation. It turned on whether the claim

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-22194683337615714132010-01-12T21:12:00.029Z2011-08-01T12:48:49.822+01:00

Every so often a case comes along that is remembered for having something to say on more than one important issue. One such case was Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill & Smith Ltd. [1982] R.P.C 183 which is cited not just for Lord Diplock's speech on purposive construction of patent claims but also for the so called Catnic defence to copyright infringement. Another example isOccular Sciences Ltd v

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-23490513337264704132010-01-10T20:06:00.010Z2010-01-10T23:30:19.445Z

In Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd v Eli Lilly & Company Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ 1362 (18 Dec 2009) the Court of Appeal (Sir David Neuberger MR, Lord Justice Jacob and Lord Justice Richards) dismissed Dr. Reddy's appeal from Mr. Justice Floyd's refusal to revoke Eli Lily's European patent for olanzapine (see Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd v Eli Lilly & Company Ltd. [2008] EWHC 2345 (Pat), [2009]

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-41877880703019098732010-01-10T16:15:00.004Z2010-01-10T16:55:06.033Z

On 12 Oct 2009 I attended the 10th anniversary conference of the UDRP at WIPO in Geneva. I did not post anything about it at the time because I was expected that there would be a good summary of the proceedings on the WIPO website. That has happened. If anybody wants to read it he or she will find it here.A conference usually takes place at that time of the year for domain name panellists, but

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-57633155455679946572010-01-10T14:30:00.008Z2010-01-10T16:04:30.971Z

My first inkling that the Lisbon Treaty was not something that IP practitioners could ignore was when I saw the following paragraph in the EPO's press release on the "EU patent" of 18 Dec 2009:"With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union replaced and succeeded the European Community and has been endowed with legal personality. Therefore, the Community patent is now called

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-27405420020731299102010-01-10T12:13:00.001Z2010-01-10T12:21:32.531Z

One long overdue amendment to my blog was to add the Korean Intellectual Property Office ("KIPO") to my list of national and regional patent offices. According to WIPO's World Intellectual Property Indicators 2009 KIPO has surpassed the EPO to become the fourth largest patent office in the world.Table 1: Patent Filings by Office 2007Intellectual Property

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-35921114678734969682010-01-10T00:28:00.005Z2010-01-10T01:21:34.138Z

A new year and new beginnings for this blog and these chambers.So far as the blog is concerned I have adopted a new template. I have weeded out a lot of broken links and added some relevant links like the WTO, UPOV and the Korea IP Office. I have removed some of the old gadgets which nobody use and some folk found annoying. In their place, I have added a twitter feed and blog roll.As for

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-19588574528246788602009-11-17T09:17:00.004Z2009-11-17T09:54:20.981Z

Tucked away on the IPO website is a short announcement that Ian Fletcher has left the Patent Office to take up an appointment as CEO of the Department of Employment, Economic Development & Innovation for the Government of Queensland and that "Sean Dennehey has been appointed Interim Chief Executive and Comptroller-General pending the appointment of a substantive replacement for Ian Fletcher."

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-50822640049758361432009-10-04T16:17:00.003+01:002009-10-04T20:19:56.448+01:00

Some years ago I was a member of a working party of the Lib-Dem Lawyers Association that was tasked with commenting on the government's proposals for constitutional reform. One of those proposals was a new Supreme Court for the United Kingdom in place of the House of Lords. The others were abolition of Queen's Counsel and reform of the procedure for recruiting judges. It was quite a high powered

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-39898929502452472662009-10-02T20:41:00.005+01:002009-10-02T21:29:01.232+01:00

Last week I represented a defendant to a trade mark and passing off claim in a mediation that took place in the new London offices of the Intellectual Property Office. This was the first time I had visited those premises and I was rather taken back to see that they shared them with Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and, even more disconcertingly, the Insolvency Service. The IPO used

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-27862892635495959692009-07-21T23:02:00.002+01:002009-07-21T23:15:36.232+01:00

Barbara CooksonChartered Patent Agent/European Patent Attorney Filemot Technology Law The Rt Hon Sir Francis Jacobs KCMG QC and former ECJ Advocate General was the surprise guest speaker at the Hogarth Chambers Summer IP Seminar on Wednesday 15th July. Quietly spoken and urbane, his manner reflected the lugubrious nature of ECJ proceedings that are now seriously frustrating the IP community.

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-89179852866151265942009-06-10T11:17:00.004+01:002009-06-10T11:35:31.287+01:00

Here is a list of some recent intellectual property and other cases that I you may wish to read. I have commented on some of some of those cases in articles and case notes on this or one of my other blogs: Topic Court Case Transcript Issues Comment Patents Court of Appeal Aerotel Ltd v Wavecrest Group Enterprises Ltd

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-86482163478504985182009-06-01T06:23:00.020+01:002009-06-01T10:30:50.018+01:00

I am often asked by solicitors whether I go to the Patents Court. Or by trade mark attorneys whether I represent clients in the Registry. Or by Business Link whether I can do a risk analysis or draft terms and conditions for their clients. Or by businessmen and women whether I can review a draft contract.   The answer to all those questions is a resounding YES.All of those things are within the

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-33659939862758251162009-05-29T23:53:00.003+01:002009-05-30T00:26:24.943+01:00

In Leo Pharma (a/s Leo Laboratories Ltd) v Sandoz Ltd [2009] EWHC 996 (Pat) (15 May 2009) the defendant admitted that it had infringed the patent in suit but contended that the patent was invalid for lack of novelty and obviousness. The case was decided on its facts rather than on the law.  On anticipation, Mr Justice Floyd summarized the principles expounded by Lord Hoffmann in Synthon BV v.

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-77558231156723613552009-05-29T12:14:00.006+01:002009-05-29T12:56:15.894+01:00

A fascinating little case on judicial discretion.  The claimant in TNS Group Holdings Ltd. v Nielsen Media Research Inc. claimed the revocation of the defendant's patent for a television audience management measurement system. It had also launched opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office under art 99 of the European Patent Convention.   Shortly before the issue of the claim form in

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-86559299954498822122009-05-28T11:11:00.003+01:002009-05-28T11:52:01.072+01:00

In Daimler AG v Sany Group Company Ltd [2009] EWHC 1003 (Ch) (14 May 2009) the registered proprietor of the following marks sought injunctions and other relief against Sany Group Co. Ltd. in respect of its use of the following sign:The claimant's marks had been registered in the UK and at OHIM for various goods and services for may years and it brought proceedings under s.10 (2) (b) and (3) of

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-56203842191998941092009-05-28T08:56:00.004+01:002009-05-28T11:02:12.866+01:00

It takes a lot of courage for a deputy judge to extend the envelope of settled practice and Mr. Stephen Smith QC is to be congratulated for doing just that in Hayim and others v Couch [2009] EWHC 1040 (Ch). In this case Mr Smith was asked to make declarations of right without there having been a trial, or indeed any hearing on the merits of the claims.The request was made in order to give effect

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-68056013536449745012009-05-24T14:23:00.008+01:002009-05-24T16:54:06.586+01:00

Over the last few months there have been a spate of claims by luxury goods manufacturers against eBay. In RG 07/11365 L'Oréal SA c eBay France SA in which the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris dismissed trade mark infringement claims by L'Oréal against eBay for providing an on-line market for counterfeit goods on 13 May 2009.   A similar case came before Mr Justice Anold in  L'Oreal SA and

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-21883022699612477002009-03-31T21:50:00.006+01:002009-04-01T17:56:54.867+01:00

Congratulations to Professor Jeremy Phillips on his appointment as the first Dean of the newly formed Law Faculty of the University of Botswana. Law had previously been taught at the University to master's level within the Faculty of Social Science.   The new Law Faculty will be the sixth Faculty of the University, One of Jeremy's first responsibilities will be to give the keynote speech to the

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-61029794985734817112009-03-26T08:10:00.010Z2009-03-26T13:52:49.677Z

A harmless tradition of intellectual property bloggers at this time of the year is the April Fools Spoof. On 1 April 2006 Jeremy and Illanah announced "The WIPO Space Probe".  The same day I announced the removal of the Patents Court to an industrial estate in Newport which apparently landed Miles Rees into terrible trouble with the Comptroller. Having recently appeared as counsel at the Syddfa

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-34551049730626323832009-03-05T01:08:00.003Z2009-03-05T01:41:43.132Z

This song from the Life of Brian chorused and whistled by about several hundred people in Middle Temple Hall brought Sir Hugh Laddie's memorial service to an end yesterday evening. Although a sad occasion it was also a celebration of a life well lived.   There were tributes from the many different sides of that life - Mark Platts-Mills QC from his chambers, Tony Willoughby from the firm he joined

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-12175439231537471572009-02-18T01:03:00.006Z2009-02-18T08:30:03.228Z

This is the first reported case of a successful contested award under s.40 and s. 41 of the Patents Act 1977. In Kelly and another v GE Healthcare Ltd [2009] EWHC 181 (Pat) (11 February 2009). The claimants, Duncan Kelly and Kwok Wai ("Ray") Chiu, were research scientists at Amersham International Plc. They were involved with the first synthesis of a compound called P53, which later formed the

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-75967155925748949392009-02-17T21:43:00.003Z2009-02-17T21:56:16.257Z

Regulations to implement the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC) which will come into effect on 6 April 2009 have been published in draft on the OPSI website.   The legislation - to be known as The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009 - require public communications providers (“providers”), to retain specified categories of communications data for up to 12 months from the

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-41382944114123136932009-02-05T21:15:00.014Z2009-02-06T14:39:35.106Z

Embarrassingly, I am not the first to blog this event. That honour (if such it be) goes to Nick Holmes of Binary Law (see "Brainstorm on Web Law at LawCampLeeds"). And while you are there look at some of the other things on Nick's blog like the Free Legal Web which I commend and to which I hope shortly to contribute.  Nick also has the honour of organizing what appears to have been the first

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-11240595268809723922009-01-29T01:35:00.003Z2009-01-29T01:49:10.588Z

My neighbour, Edward French, a venture capitalist, has produced a rather good slideshow entitled TechGain: An Investor view of Intellectual Property which I thoroughly recommend. I spent a very congenial evening in his presence at the Venturefest dinner some years ago and seem to run into him every so often at events like Open Coffee Leeds where there are a lot of hopeful and hungry geeks, some

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-80124881235136063722009-01-25T17:32:00.006Z2009-01-25T17:51:16.400Z

"The man o' independent mind, He looks an' laughs at a' that".   A very tenuous connection with intellectual property, I know, but I could not let the day pass without reproducing one of my favourite poems:"Is there for honest PovertyThat hings his head, an' a' that;The coward slave-we pass him by,We dare be poor for a' that!For a' that, an' a' that,Our toils obscure an' a' that,The rank is but

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-30218153329676305122009-01-25T10:00:00.004Z2009-01-25T10:47:31.328Z

Shortly after I started this blog in 2005 I reported on a spat between Angela Merkel and the Rolling Stones over her use of their classic Angie as their campaign anthem (see "Stoned! The Difference between Copyright and Rights in Performances" 23 Aug 2005).   It now looks as if presidential hopeful John McCain is in similar lumber with Jackson Browne over "Running on Empty" though he is applying

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-51079761973482881072009-01-20T00:14:00.006Z2009-01-20T08:18:29.019Z

This was a claim by Actavis for the revocation of a Novartis's European patent for a preparation which released fluvastatin (a cholesterol inhibiting drug) gradually rather than in an immediate burst on grounds of obviousness and insufficiency. There was also a counterclaim by Novartis for infringement of its patent. Novartis conceded that the claims as granted could not be granted and applied

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-30088872857167720172009-01-16T08:21:00.005Z2009-01-16T17:36:22.221Z

"Pirates win music download battle" screamed the headline on the BBC website. "Oh Goody" I thought, "an end to the litigation drought perhaps." I am not sure that it is when you actually read the report. Considering the state of consumer confidence and the rapid development of digital technologies, music industry sales seem to be holding up pretty well. And that also accords with my own

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-70041226974170402912009-01-16T01:28:00.015Z2009-01-16T08:19:12.909Z

As I have to present a talk for our seminar on Software Patents after Symbian and Bilski in Liverpool on 5 Feb 2009 I thought I would have a look at the Comptroller's decisions since Symbian Ltd v Comptroller-General [2008] EWCA Civ 1066 to see whether there had been any change in the Office's approach to software and business method patents since the CA's decision.The official line from the IPO

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-41396737643029223232009-01-12T19:55:00.005Z2009-01-12T20:30:10.902Z

During November 2008 the well known legal consultants, Altman Weil Inc., polled 1,292 general counsel (in-house legal advisors) in the USA as to whether they faced budget cuts in 2009 and, if so, what they planned to do about them.   The consultancy’s findings are published in a report entitled “Law Department Cost Control” which can be downloaded from its website. Although there were only 115

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-61671582247482381692009-01-10T17:33:00.022Z2009-01-12T20:36:30.135Z

Happy New Year!Every time there is an economic downturn businesses look for ways of saving money on legal services, particularly in intellectual property ("IP") and technology, media and telecommunications ("TMT").    The beneficiaries of the last downturn were regional firms such as Addleshaws of Manchester, Eversheds, Pinsents and Wragge's of Birningham, A V Hammond and Last Suddard of Bradford

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-10829889395806490342008-12-30T07:40:00.002Z2008-12-30T08:14:56.486Z

The University of Southern California held a conference at San Diego earlier this month on Leading Legal Innovation. It seems to have attracted some distinguished academics and a sprinkling of practising lawyers though, sadly, none from the UK so far as I can see.   Susan Block has reported on what seems to have been one of the more interesting conference papers which was presented by Prof.

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15652882.post-5346974213541967062008-12-29T15:23:00.005Z2008-12-29T15:51:56.013Z

On 8 Dec 2008 Sean Dennehey signed a new practice note on the patenmtability of computer programs to take account of the CA's decision in Symbian. The main changes relate to:what constitutes a technical contribution for the purpose of determing whether a program is patentable; andclarificaiton of the exclusions in s.1 of the Patents Act 1977.Technical ContributionThe Intellectual Property Office

Jane Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14448574554083999342noreply@blogger.com1