NIPC Law

  Author Abhishekptlbbk   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court (HH Judge Hacon)  JC Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd and another [2022] EWHC 1724 (Pat) (4 July 2022) This was a claim by J C Bamford Excavators ("JCB") against Manitou UK Ltd and its French holding company Manitou BF SA ("Manitou") for patent infringement and a counterclaim by Manitou for revocation of the patents in suit.   Those patents were  EP 1 532 065 B2 for a Control system for a load handling apparatus     (“EP 065”), EP 2 263 965 B9 for a Method of Operating a Working Machine   (“EP 965”), EP 2 616 382 B3 for a Controller for use with a machine, machine including said controller, and method for controlling a machine  (“EP 382”) and UK Patent No. GB 2 390 595 B for a Control system for a machine (“GB 595”). The action and counterclaim came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon between 15 and 18 and 24 and 25 ...

Author Rklawton   Licence   CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Yesterday the Intellectual Property Office added a new para  125.17.8  on the Formstein defence  to its Manual of Patent Practice .  Considering that the defence is a doctrine of German law and that there has been no firm decision on whether that doctrine applies to this country, that is quite remarkable. Para 125.17.8 describes the doctrine as: "a principle developed under German patent law in relation to infringement and the doctrine of equivalents (DoE), whereby if an alleged infringer can show that an equivalent is a non-inventive variant of the claimed invention, then the patent’s scope for the purposes of determining any infringement is held to its normal construction – in other words the DoE does not apply." I have referred to the doctrine in  Patents - Technetix BV and others v Teleste Ltd . on 19 Feb 2010 and  Patents - Facebook Ireland Ltd v Vox...

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Kwikbolt Ltd v Airbus Operations Ltd [2021] EWHC 732 (IPEC) (25 March 2021) This was an action for an injunction, damages and other relief against aerospace manufacturer Airbus Operations Ltd, for patent infringement. There was also a counterclaim by Airbus for revocation of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness and insufficiency. The action and counterclaim came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon between 9 and 12 Feb 2021. In  Kwikbolt Ltd v Airbus Operations Ltd [2021] EWHC 732 (IPEC) (25 March 2021) His Honour held that the patent was valid but that it had not been infringed.  The Patent The patent in suit is GB2455635B .  It was granted for a removable blind fastener.  The title might suggest that the invention has something to do with window blinds in an aircraft  cabin, In fact  "'Blind' is a term of art in the context of fasteners, meaning that...

By John Schmidt - en:Image:Sequencing.jpg, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1584721   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss)  Illumina Cambridge Ltd v Latvia MGI Tech SIA and others [2021] EWHC 57 (Pat) (20 Jan 2021) This was an action for patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation.  The defendants, referred to collectively as "MGI" , wish to sell  DNA sequencing systems in the UK.  The claimant,  Illumina Cambridge Ltd ("Illumina")  contended that 4 of those systems infringed its patents. MGI denied infringement and alleged that the patents were invalid for obviousness, insufficiency and added matter, The action and counterclaim came on for trial before Mr Justice Birss on  9  to  13 , 16 to  20 , 25 , 26  Nov and 9  Dec 2020.  Judgment was delivered on 20 Jan 2021 (see Illumina Cambridge Ltd v Latvia MGI Tech SIA and others [2021] EWHC 57 (Pat) (20 Jan 2021). T...