NIPC Law

Standard YouTube Licence Jane Lambert   Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor)  Cabo Concepts Ltd v MGA Entertainment (UK) Ltd and another     [2021] EWHC 491 (Pat) (4 March 2021) Yesterday I mentioned the cake war between Marks & Spencer and Aldi (see Jane Lambert Cake War s 17 April 2021 NIPC News).  Today I discuss the litigation between the suppliers of the Worldeez and LOL Surprise! toys,  If you have never heard of either, this video  LOLSurprise Lil Sister vs. Worldeez NEW! Who will win!?!   by Adulting With Children should enlighten you.  At the very least you should appreciate the children's pleasure as they unwrap their packages. The Dispute MGA's LOL Surprise! dolls appear to be well established in the UK market.  They are described at para [6] of Mr Justice Mellor's judgment in  Cabo Concepts Ltd v MGA Entertainment (UK) Ltd and another  [2021] EWHC 491 (Pat) (4 March 2021).  Cabo Concepts says that it had plan...

By Christine Smith - This file has been extracted from another file: Middlesex Guildhall.png, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=82543212 Jane Lambert Supreme Court (Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lady Black. Lord Briggs and Lord Sales)  Unwired Planet International Ltd and another v Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd and another [2020] UKSC 37 (26 August 2020) This was the judgment in the conjoined appeals from the decisions of the Court of Appeal in  Unwired Planet International Ltd and another v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and another   [2018] RPC 20, [2018] EWCA Civ 2344 and  Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd v Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L [2019] RPC 6, [2019] EWCA Civ 38.  I have discussed the litigation in the High Court and Court of Appeal in FRAND - A Recap   on   8 Aug 2020 and FRAND on 8 Oct 2017.  I shall discuss the Supreme Court's judgment on FRAND in a talk over Zoo...

Wikip2011 / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss) Teva UK Ltd v Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA [2020] EWHC 1311 (Pat) (2 June 2020) This was an application by the claimant, Teva UK Ltd ("Teva") to strike out or stay a counterclaim by the defendant, Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA ("Chiesi") for an injunction to restrain the infringement of certain patents that Teva had sought to revoke. Teva argued that the counterclaim had no real prospect of success because there was no evidence that Teva threatened or intended to infringe any of the patents in suit.  Alternatively, Teva argued that the counterclaim should be stayed on the ground that the disclosure of a product description for the purpose of the litigation would mount to a concerted practice within the meaning of art 101  of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") and/or s,2  of the Competition Act 1998.  The ...

European Commission Author:  Amio Cajander Source Wikipedia Creative Commons Licence A Euro-defence is an answer to a claim for the infringement of an intellectual property or other right under national law based on the primacy of European Union law. In the early days of our membership of what used to be called the European Economic Community such defences were pleaded quite regularly and they often succeeded. Probably the high water mark was Magill  ( Radio Telefis Eireann and Others v Commission of the European Communities   [1995] 4 CMLR 718, [1995] EUECJ C-241/91P, [1995] EMLR 337, [1995] All ER (EC) 416, [1995] ECR I-743, [1995] FSR 530, [1998] Masons CLR Rep 58) where the Court of Justice held that the enforcement of broadcasters' copyrights constituted an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of art 86 of the Treaty of Rome (now  art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as it has now bec...