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...

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...

Jane Lambert   Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property (Sir Colin Birss, Chancellor) QMC Instruments Ltd v Celtic Terahertz Technology Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 3485 (IPEC) (26 Nov 2025) This was a dispute between two university spin-off companies, which were incorporated to exploit the work of Professor Peter Ade .  Professor Ade carried out research into the far-infrared spectrum first at  Queen Mary College (now Queen Mary University London)  until 2001 and afterwards at Cardiff University . While at Queen Mary, he helped to set up QMC Instruments Ltd.  ("QMCIL") to sell far-infrared detectors and multimesh filters, some of which he had designed.  Some years later, Professor Ade and colleagues who had followed him to Cardiff established Celtic Terahertz Technology Ltd  ("CTT"). QMCIL Queen Mary College sold QMCILto investors in 1991 and warranted that the company was the sole beneficial owner of all the IP relatin...

iPhones Author iPhone 15   Licence CC BY-SA   4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Newey, Arnold and Birss)  Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others [2025] EWCA Civ 552 (1 May 2025) This was an appeal by Optis Cellular Technology LLC, Optis Wireless Technology LLC and Unwired Planet International Ltd. ("Optis") against a declaration by Mr Justice Marcus Smith on 16 Feb 2024 that a licence annexed to his order was fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND"),   The learned judge had granted the declaration following his judgments in   Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others   [2023] EWHC 1095 (Ch) 10 May 2023 and  Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others   : [2024] EWHC 197 (Ch) 14 Feb 2024.  According to para [4] of Lord Justice Birss's judgment in  Optis Cellular Technology LL...

Alcatel-Lucent SA's Head Office in Boulogne-Bilancourt Author AnaBé   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Newey, Arnold and Snowden)  Alcatel Lucent SAS v Amazon Digital UK Ltd and other s [2025] EWCA Civ 43 (28 Jan 2025) This was the second of three cases in which the Court of Appeal had to consider whether a willing licensor of a portfolio of patents declared essential to one or more standards (" standard-essential patents" or "SEPs" ) would grant an implementer of those standards who has undertaken to take a licence to that portfolio on the terms to be determined by the Patents Court to be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") an interim licence pending that determination.  The other cases were  Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi Technology UK Ltd and others [2024] EWCA Civ 1143 (3 Oct 2024) which I discussed in  FRAND - Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi Technology UK ...

Author  Basher Eyre #   Lixnxw  CC BY-SA 2. 0 Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Moylan, Arnold and Phillips)  Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi Technology UK Ltd and others [2024] EWCA Civ 1143 (3 Oct 2024) On 31 July 2023, Panasonic Holdings Corporation ("Panasonic") issued proceedings against Xiaomi Technology UK Ltd., its holding and two associated companies (Xiaomi) for declarations that certain of its patents were essential to one or more ETSI telecommunications standards, that they had been infringed by Xiaomi, that the terms on which it was willing to license patents were fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") or could become FRAND after some adjustments and injunctions against Xianomi if those companies rejected those terms.  On 8 Nov 2023, after a hearing before Mr Justice Meade, his lordship ordered a 10 to 15-day trial to be listed in October 2024, limited to the determination of the terms of the court-determined lice...