NIPC Law

Author Sodacan   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0 Deed   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (The Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Nugee and Sir Christopher Floyd)  Flitcraft Ltd and others v Price and another [2024] EWCA Civ 136 (27 Feb  2024) On 31 Jan 2024, the Court of Appeal (consisting of The Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Nugee and Sir Christopher Floyd) heard two separate appeals against orders by Nicholas Caddick KC in proceedings that had been brought by Philip Price ("Mr Price") and others against Flitcraft Ltd ("Flitcraft") and others for patent and copyright infringement and passing off.   I commented on the main trial of that action in  Patents, Copyright and Passing off - Price v Flitcraft Ltd   on 16 Jan 2023 and in A Patent Trial in Manchester at Last - Price v Flitcraft Ltd   on 17 Jan 2023 in IP Northwest and on Mr Caddick's judgment on costs following a further hearing on 16 March 2023 in Costs - Price v Flitcr...

Author Judicial Office UK Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Zacaroli) Parsons v Convatec Lt d [2023] EWHC 1535 (Pat) (26 June 2023) This was an application by an employer to strike out or summarily dismiss part of its employee's claim for compensation under s.40 of the Patents Act 1977.  S.7 (2) of the Patents Act 1977 states that a patent for an invention may be granted primarily to the inventor except where a rule of law or contract entitles someone else to claim the invention.  One such exception is provided by s.39  which entitles employers to claim their employees' inventions in certain circumstances.  Most employees who are expected to invent something in the course of their employment enjoy generous salaries and benefits but there are some inventions that are so valuable to the employer that it is just to reward the employee with something extra.  S.40 makes provision for such re...

  Jane Lambert Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property List ( Mrs Justice Joanna Smith) Lidl Great Britain Limited and another v Tesco Stores Ltd and anothe r [2023] EWHC 1517 (Ch) (21 June 2023) In Trade Marks - Lidl v Tesco   which I posted to this blog on 1 May 2023 I discussed Mrs Justice Joanna Smith's judgment in ) Lidl Great Britain Limited and another v Tesco Stores Ltd and another [ 2023] EWHC 873 (Ch) (19 April 2023),  In that case Lidl Great Britain Ltd and Lidl Stiftung & Co KG ("Lidl") sued Tesco Stores Ltd and Tesco Plc ("Tesco") for copyright \and trade mark infringement and passing off. Tesco counterclaimed for cancellation of some of Lidl's marks,  By her judgment of 19 April 2023 the judge found for Lidl on its claim and Tesco on part of its counterclaim. Outstanding Issues The parties agreed that Tesco was entitled to an injunction to restrain trade mark infringement and passing off but Tesco objecte...

Author Pierre Adolphe Valett e   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Nicholas Caddick KC)  Price and others v Flitcraft Ltd and other s [2023] EWHC 695 (Pat) (3 April 2023) I discussed Nicholas Caddick KC's judgment in  Price and others v Flitcraft Ltd and other s [2022] EWHC 3381 (Pat) (20 Dec 2022) in Patents, Copyright and Passing off - Price v Flitcraft Lt d on 16 Jan 2022 and  A Patent Trial in Manchester at Last - Price v Flitcraft Lt d   in IP Northwest on 17 Jan 2023,  This was an action for patent and copyright infringement and passing off.  The first claimant, Philip Price, did not win on anything but the second claimant, Supawall Ltd, did have some success with the patent claim though not with passing off.  As it was not obvious which party was the overall winner a further hearing took place on  16 March 2023 to decide which of those parties should pay which costs.  The judgment was handed down on 3 April 2023 ( Price and others v F...

Author   Dfrg.msc   Public Domain Source  Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Arnold and Nugee and Sir Christopher Floyd) Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG    [2022] EWCA Civ 1617 (8 Dec 2022) This was an appeal against Mrs Justice Bacon's refusal to grant an Arrow declaration in  Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG [2022] EWHC 2779 (Ch) (19 Oct 2022). Lord Justice Arnold defined an Arrow declaration as "a declaration that a product, process or use was lacking in novelty or obvious as at the priority date of a patent application" at para [17] of his judgment in  Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG [2022] EWCA Civ 1617.  He explained that Arrow declarations take their name from the seminal decision of Kitchin J (as he then was) in Arrow Generics Ltd v Merck & Co Inc [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat), [2008] Bus LR 487.  He continued:   "The point of such declaration is that it is in eff...

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Jacon)  Tehrani v Bonaduz AR and others [2022] EWHC 1031 (IPEC) (18 Feb 2022) S.75 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 provides: "In any proceedings before the court or the comptroller in which the validity of a patent may be put in issue the court or, as the case may be, the comptroller may, subject to section 76 below, allow the proprietor of the patent to amend the specification of the patent in such manner, and subject to such terms as to advertising the proposed amendment and as to costs, expenses or otherwise, as the court or comptroller thinks fit." In  Tehrani v Bonaduz AR and others [2022] EWHC 1031 (IPEC) (18 Feb 2022),  the patentee sought to change the words "for a next breath of the patient" to "for the next breath of the patient" in one of the claims and consequential amendments of the body of the specification.  The problem with the application is that it was sought after the court...