NIPC Law

Intellectual Property Office, Newport Crown Copyright  Open Govr Licence v.3.0   Source IPO website Jane Lambert The Intellectual Property Office  is an executive agency of the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology .  Its mission is "to help people grow the UK economy by providing an IP system that encourages investment in creativity and innovation."  It set out its strategy for fulfilling that mission in its corporate report  IP for a creative and innovative UK Strategy 2024 to 2027   on 2 May 2024. Three Pillars In that report, the IPO stated that its contribution to growing the UK economy by providing an IP system that encourages investment in creativity and innovation will be built on the following three pillars: High-quality, efficient and accessible services A policy of supporting innovation and the economy Delivery by a high-performing organization with skilled people connected by a shared purpose. High-quality, Efficient and A...

Basher Eyre / Junction of Fetter Lane and Rolls Buildings Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss)   Nicoventures Trading Ltd v Philip Morris Products, SA ( [2020] EWHC 1594 (Pat) (16 June 2020) This was an application by Philip Morris Products SA ("Philip Morris") to expedite the trial of an action that it had brought against British American Tobacco ("BAT") for the invalidation of European patents (UK) 3 398 460 and 3 491 944 for heated tobacco products which had been invented by John Howard Robinson and others ("the Robinson patents").  BAT resisted the application on the ground that the case for expedition had not been made out. However, there was also a contingent cross-application by BAT for expedition of the trial of an action that it had brought against Philip Morris for the invalidation of the Robinson patents and a counterclaim for the infringement of European patents (UK) 3 248 484, 3 248 486, and 3 248 483 for heated ...

Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Floyd and Lewison) Mexichem UK Limited v Honeywell International Inc . [2020] EWCA Civ 473 (1 April 2020) This was an appeal by the defendant company against Judge Hacon's refusal in Mexichem UK Ltd v Honeywell International Inc, 2019 WL 06877912 (2019) to strike out, or grant summary judgment in respect of, the claimant's application for an Arrow declaration. In Missed! Arrow Declarations - Pfizer v Hoffmann La Roche 5 Aug 2019 I described an "Arrow declaration" as "a declaration that a product or process was known or obvious at a particular date and therefore could not fall within the claims of a patent." They take their name from the judgment in Arrow Generics Ltd and another v Merck & Co, Inc [2008] Bus LR 487, [2007] FSR 39, [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat) but they derive from the much older "squeeze" case of Gillette Safety Razor Co v Anglo-American Trading Co Ltd. (1913) 30 RPC 465. The ...

Manchester Central Library Author Mike Peel Licence Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International Source Wikipedia Jane Lambert According to the Intellectual Property Office's Facts and Figures   for 2016 and 2017, 24 out of the 38 inter partes disputes that came before the Office's tribunals arose from disputes over ownership of inventions.   This can be an expensive and time consuming process as I explained in Disputes over Ownership of Inventions  6  Aug 2015 NIPC Southeast.  Disputes over ownership of other intellectual property  ("IP") rights result in infringement actions like MEI Fields Designs Ltd v Saffron Cards and Gifts Ltd and another [2018] EWHC 1332 (IPEC) (6 June 2018) which I discussed in Copyright: MEI Designs Ltd. and Saffron Cards and Gifts Ltd . 8 Aug 2018. Many of those disputes arise out of collaboration between different business entities where no or insufficient attention  was paid to...

Jane Lambert On Wednesday I stressed the importance of pre-action correspondence and how the drafting of a letter before claim can make all the difference between getting what you want quickly and cheaply through focused negotiation and precipitating an expensive and possibly protracted law suit in  Pre-Action Correspondence - Not Just a Box to be ticked or a Hoop to be jumped through   2 Aug 2017. Today, I shall tell you what to do if you receive a letter accusing you of infringing a patent or some other intellectual property right. If you have carried out an IP audit you should have a strategy in place for just such a contingency and you will have an insurance funded legal team ready to advise and represent you.  If you have a case they should be able to see off the challenge with a well-reasoned and documented response. If, however, you are in the wrong they will advise you of that reality and suggest ways of extricating yourself from the dispute as ...

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 Rights” in Nov 2003; IPAC “Patent Enforcement for SME and Lone Inventors – A System Failure” in Nov 2003; HM Treasury "Productivity in the UK: Enterprise and the Productivity Challenge" in June 2001; and William Kingston “Enforcing Small Firms’ Patent Rights ". Now we have “Digital Opportunity A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth” by Prof. Ian Hargreaves of T he Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies . Does this report say anything that has not already been said before? In my view it does. As readers will see from my comments on Innovati...