NIPC Law

Etihad Stadium Author  Cléria De Souza   Licence   CC BY  2.0    Source  Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Males,, Phillips and Birss)  Supponor Ltd and another v AIM Sport Development AG [2024] EWCA Civ 396 (23 April 2024) This was an appeal against Mr Justice Meade's judgment in AIM Sport Vision AG v Supponor Ltd and another [2023] EWHC 164 (Pat) (30 Jan 2023) which I discussed in  Patents - AIM Sport Vision v Supponor   on 6 Sept 2023.  That had been an action by AIM Sport Vision AG ("AIM") against Supponor OY and Supponor Ltd. ("Supponor") for infringement of  European patent (UK) 3 295 663 B1  by Supponot's SVB system and a counterclaim by Supponor for the revocation of the patent on the grounds of obviousness and insufficiency.  His lordship had held that the patent was valid and infringed. The Invention The patent was granted for digitally overlaying an image with another image....

Great Hall of the People Chongqing Author flyerletian Licence  CCO 1.0   Soutce Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Peter Jackson, Arnold and Phillips) Nokia Technologies OY and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd and others [2022] EWCA Civ 947 (11 July 2022) This was an appeal from the judgment of HH Judge Hacon sitting as a judge of the High Court in  Nokia Technologies OY and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd and other s (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 2952 (Pat) (4 Nov 2021) which I discussed in  FRAND - Nokia Technologies v Oneplus Technology   on 25 April 2022.  Readers will recall that the learned judge refused an application to set aside service of patent infringement proceedings on defendants that had been incorporated in China and to stay the action against the defendants that had been incorporated here to abide the outcome of proceedings in China to determine the terms of a FRAND licence for the...

Manchester Civil Justice Centre Photo Michaelmazr   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   S ource Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Since the 1 Oct 2010, intellectual property claims of £500,000 or less that can be tried in no more than 2 days have been eligible to proceed in what was previously the Patents County Court and is now the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC)  (see New Patents County Court Rules   31 Oct 2010). The advantages of litigating in IPEC are that parties know from an early stage precisely when their trial will take place and judgment be delivered and their maximum liability for the other side's costs. The timetable is strictly enforced and the work that has to be done on case preparation is controlled. Shorter Trials Scheme Some of those advantages are now available for claims for more than £500,000 in the Business and Property Courts that have been issued on or after 1 Oct 2015 and can be tried in 4 days or less under a regime known as "the Shor...

Supreme People's Court of the Peoples' Republic of China Author ONUnicorn   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia   Common   J ane Lambert Patents Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Nokia Technologies OY and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd and other s (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 2952 (Pat) (4 Nov 2021) This was an application to HH Judge Hacon sitting as a judge of the Patents Court to set aside service of patent infringement proceedings on defendants that had been incorporated in China and to stay the action against the defendants that had been incorporated here to abide the outcome of proceedings in China to determine the terms of a FRAND licence for the claimants' patent portfolio on the basis that China was the more appropriate forum.  Alternatively, a stay of the whole action or at least the determination of the licence terms was sought on case management grounds.        The applicants contended that the circumstances that had led to...

The Rolls Building Author Basher Eyre   Licence CC BY-SA 2.0   Source  Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Mitsubishi Electric Company and another v Archos SA and others   [2021] EWHC 889 (Pat) (13 April 2021) A FRAND case is essentially a patent infringement claim where the remedy to which a successful claimant would normally be entitled has been modified by agreement.  Mr Justice Birss summarized the principle succinctly at para [83] of his judgment in   Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and anothe r [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat) (5 April 2017): "The point of FRAND in standard setting is fairly easy to understand. Standards exist so that different manufacturers can produce equipment which is interoperable with the result that the manufacturers compete with one another. So the phone makers compete in the market for phones and the public can select a phone from any supplier and be sure (for exa...

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...

Audiencia Nacional, Madrid Author FDV   Licence  CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikipedia   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Marcus Smith)  Top Optimized Technologies SL and another v Vodafone Group Services Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 46 (Pat) (14 Jan 2021) This was an application by Vodafone Group Services Limited, Vodafone Group plc and Vodafone Limited ("Vodafone") to stay, either on jurisdictional grounds or for case management reasons, proceedings that had been brought against them by Top Optimized Technologies SL and TOT Power Control SL ("TOT") for patent infringement and other causes of action.  TOT had also brought proceedings against Vodaphone and Huawei in Madrid which Vodafone had challenged with some success on the ground that several causes of action were subject to agreements conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the English courts.  The proceedings that Vodaphone sought to stay were referred to as "the second UK proceedings" and the pr...