NIPC Law

Fibre Optic Cables Author BigRiz   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Jane Lambert The key to a successful software development contract is a comprehensive and accurate technical specification that is agreed upon and understood by both the customer and the supplier.  It is important not to confuse a technical specification with a functional specification.   The functional specification will set out the functions and facilities that the software should have, but not state how it is to be developed.   Those details will be contained in the technical specification.    The customer should satisfy himself or herself that the technical specification implements the functional specification.   If he or she lacks the skill and knowledge to do that, he or she may wish to appoint a consultant to help. Acceptance Tests As the bargain is that the supplier will deliver the specified software in return for a fee, a clause setting out the ac...

Author Edward Hards   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Melissa Clarke)  Morley's (Fast Foods) Ltd v Sivakumar and others [2024] EWHC 1369 (IPEC) (10 June 2024) This is one of the first accessory liability cases since the Supreme Court's judgment in Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Ahmed and Another [2024] UKSC 17 on 15 May 2024 which I discussed in  Trade Marks: Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed   on 2 June 2024 and in Another Beverly Hills Polo Club Appeal   in NIPC Branding on 4 June 2024.   The claimant is the franchisor of the Morley's chain of fast food outlets which operate mainly in London.  The seventh defendant, Kunalingam Kunatheeswaran, franchises a competing fast food chain called "Metro's".  The other defendants were his franchisees  The claimant complained that  Metro's signage infringed its trade marks and misreprese...

A Huawei Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer ("DSLAM") Author Jnnis Walter Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Arnold, Nugee and Birss) A daptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment Inc v British Telecommunications Plc [2023] EWCA Civ 451 (26 April 2023) This was an appeal by  Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Incorporated ("ASSIA")  against the judgment of Mrs Justice Falk in  Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment Inc v British Telecommunications Plc [2022] EWHC 1707 (Ch) (6 July 2022). Her ladyship dismissed ASSIA's claim for declarations on the construction of a patent licence granted by ASSIA to British Telecommunications Plc ("BT" ).  ASSIA's appeal came on before Lords Justices Arnold, Nugee and Birss on 29 March 2023.  By their judgment which was handed down on 26 April 2022, their lordships unanimously dismissed the appeal (see Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment Inc v ...

Author Kamyar Ali   Licence CC BY 2.0   Source Wikimedia Commons South Park, Oxford   Jane Lambert Patents Count (Daniel Alexander KC)  Oxford University Innovation Ltd v Oxford Nanoimaging Ltd [2022] EWHC 3200 (Pat) (23 Dec 2022) This was an action by Oxford University Innovations Ltd , ("OUI") to recover the royalties due under a licence agreement that it had entered with Oxford Nanoimaging Ltd . ("ONI") on 26 April 2016.  OUI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oxford University.  Mr Daniel Alexander KC, who tried the action as a deputy judge of the High Court, described OUI as "the technology transfer arm of the University".  OUI owns the patents and other intellectual property rights relating to a compact, super-resolution imaging device known as the "Nanoimager". The device was largely invented by one Bo Jing  initially while he was employed as an intern and later while he was a DPhil student at the University. Mr Jing is now a director and ...