NIPC Law

UK Supreme Court Author:  Dietmar Rabich   Licence:  CC BY-SA 4.0   Source:  Wikimedia Commo n s Jane Lambert Supreme Court (Lord Sales (Deputy President), Lord Briggs, Lord Hamblen, Lord Burrows and Lord Kitchin)  Tesla, Inc and another v InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc and others [2026] UKSC 27 (27 July 2026) This was an appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision in  Tesla Inc and another v IDAC Holdings Inc and Others [2025] EWCA Civ 193 (6 March 2025) to dismiss the appeal by Tesla Inc and Tesla Motors Ltd. ("Tesla") against Mr Justice Fancourt's order refusing service of process outside the jurisdiction in Tesla, Inc and Another v Idac Holdings, Inc and others [2024] EWHC 1815 (Ch) (15 July 2024).   The key issue was whether the courts of England and Wales had jurisdiction to decide a dispute concerning the terms of a licence to use a standard essential patent ("SEP") in circumstances where the claim was brought by an impl...

Author Dfrg.msc   Public Domain Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents are intended to promote innovation but occasionally they work against the public interest.  For instance, the term of a pharmaceutical patent that is about to expire may effectively be prolonged by a patent for a new dosing regime or a second medical use.  Sometimes the patents for such inventions may be revoked  or a  declaration of non-infringement  may be granted  A company that wants to launch a competing product will often bring revocation or non-infringement proceedings to clear the way for the launch. However, s.69 (2) of the Patents Act 1977 makes clear that such proceedings can be brought only after a patent has been granted.   There is a risk in launching a new product while a patent application is being considered because  s.69 (1).  allows a claim for damages to be backdated to the publication of the application.   That can b...

Autho r: User:Drgd.msc Licence:   Copyright waived by the owner Source: Wikipedia Arrow   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss) Pfizer Ltd v F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and another [2019] EWHC 1520 (Pat) (20 June 2019) An " Arrow declaration" is 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.  It takes its name from the decision of Mr Justicce Kitchin as he then was in  Arrow Generics Ltd and another v Merck & Co ,  [2007] FSR 39, [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat), [2008] Bus LR 487 where his lordship refused to strike out an application for such a declaration. The purpose of Arrow declarations is to determine in advance issues that might prevent or delay a  competitor from entering a market immediately after a monopoly is due to come to an end.  Thus, in Arrow, the launch of a competing product was threatened by the revival of several...