NIPC Law

Author Thewub   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Anan Kasei Co. Ltd and another v Neo Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1972 (Pat) (13 July 2021) Much of the expense of civil litigation in England and Wales arises from disclosure and inspection of documents.  "Disclosure" means stating whether a document exists or has existed.  With a number of exceptions.  CPR 31.3 (1) entitles a party to whom a document has been disclosed to inspect that document. Unless the court orders otherwise, each party must disclose the documents on which it relies and the documents that adversely affect its own case, adversely affect or support another party’s case or documents that are required to be disclosed by a relevant practice direction (see  CPR 31.5 (1) (b) and CPR 31.6 ).  "Document" for these purposes means "anything in which information of any descript...

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Kwikbolt Ltd v Airbus Operations Ltd [2021] EWHC 732 (IPEC) (25 March 2021) This was an action for an injunction, damages and other relief against aerospace manufacturer Airbus Operations Ltd, for patent infringement. There was also a counterclaim by Airbus for revocation of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness and insufficiency. The action and counterclaim came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon between 9 and 12 Feb 2021. In  Kwikbolt Ltd v Airbus Operations Ltd [2021] EWHC 732 (IPEC) (25 March 2021) His Honour held that the patent was valid but that it had not been infringed.  The Patent The patent in suit is GB2455635B .  It was granted for a removable blind fastener.  The title might suggest that the invention has something to do with window blinds in an aircraft  cabin, In fact  "'Blind' is a term of art in the context of fasteners, meaning that...

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  The Military Mutual Ltd v Police Mutual Assurance Society Ltd and other s [2018] EWHC 1575 (IPEC) (22 June 2018) The claimant arranges insurance and mortgages for past and present members of the armed forces.  On the "About Us" page of its website, it describers itself as "a Mutual set up to provide fair, financial services such as Home, Landlord, Military Kit and Business cover to those who are serving, veterans, families and supporters of our armed forces." Note the use of the big letter "M" in mutual,  That is a big part of the company's ethos.  It says that its "manifesto is very simple: always do the right thing for our Members."  The company has no shareholders or employees and is led in the main by retired senior officers who describe themselves as "customers and Members".  Anybody who acquires a policy or mortgage through the claimant compa...

Royal Courts of Justice Photo Michael Reeve Creative Commons Licence Jane Lambert Perry v F H Brundle and Others [2017] EWHC 678 (IPEC) (30 March 2017) Para 1 of the Part 3C Practice Direction, which is made pursuant to CPR 3.11 , enables the court to make a range of orders known as "civil restraint orders" against a party which has issued claims or made applications that are totally without merit. Each of those orders restricts access to the courts. They are known respectively as: a limited civil restraint order ; an extended civil restraint order ; and a general civil restraint order . I discussed the jurisdiction to make those orders in Civil Restraint Orders in IPEC - Perry v Brundle   12 Oct 2015. Readers will see that the most restrictive of those orders is the general civil restraint order which restrains the person against whom it is made from issuing any claim or making any application in the High Court or the County Court...

CPR 3.11 provides: "A practice direction may set out – (a) the circumstances in which the court has the power to make a civil restraint order against a party to proceedings; (b) the procedure where a party applies for a civil restraint order against another party; and (c) the consequences of the court making a civil restraint order." Neither the rule nor the glossary defines "civil restraint orders" but para 1 of Practice Direction 3C - Civil Restraint Orders refers to limited civil restraint orders, extended civil restraint orders and general civil restraint orders. Those orders restrict the proceedings that can be issued, and the applications that can be made, by the person against whom they are issued without the permission of the court. Para 3.2 (1) of the Practice Direction provides: "Unless the court otherwise orders, where the court makes an extended civil restraint order, the party against whom the order is made – (1) w...