NIPC Law

Lufthansa's Head Offices in Deut z-Cologne  Author Duhon   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0 Deed   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lady Justice King and Lords Justices  Newey and Birss)  Lufthansa Technik AG v Panasonic Avionics Corporation and others [2023] EWCA Civ 1273 (1 Nov 2023) Proceedings in the Chancery Division take place in two stages.  First, there is a trial to determine whether the defendant is liable to the claimant,  If the court finds that the defendant is liable it can order an account of profits or an inquiry as to damages.  An account of profits is a determination of the profits that the defendant has gained from his or her wrongdoing followed by an order for him or her to pay those profits to the claimant.  An inquiry as to damages is a determination of the injury, loss or damage that the claimant has suffered as a result of the defendant's wrongdoing and an order for payment to the claimant.  A cl...

Author Stahlkocher   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon) Acedes Holdings LLP and another v Cliver Sutton Ltd and another   [ 2023] EWHC 2005 (IPEC) (7 Aug 2023) This was a counterclaim by the defendants for the invalidation and revocation of the first claimant's  trade mark number 905883806 .  The mark was AC COBRA registered for automobiles, cars and sports cars. The claimants had brought proceedings for infringement of that trade mark but they discontinued their claim shortly before the trial.  The counterclaim came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon on 4 July 2023.  By para [84] of his judgment of 7 Aug 2023, the learned judge dismissed the counterclaim ( Acedes Holdings LLP and another v Cliver Sutton Ltd and another [2023] EWHC 2005). The Issues Judge Hacon identified the issues in para [7] of his judgment: "(1) Whether AC Cobra Mark was invalidly...

Author DebashisM   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Pat Treacy) Photobooth Props Ltd and another v NEPBH Ltd and others   [2023] EWHC 766 (IPEC) 25 April 2023 This was an application by the claimant for an order that unless the defendants make an interim payment by 16:00 on the 7th day from the date of the order, the defence of all defendants will be struck out. The obligation on the defendants to make an interim payment was an order by Ms Pat Treacy sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court at a case management conference on 2 Feb 2023. The application for the unless order was also made to Ms Treacy who decided it without a hearing on 25 April 2023 (see  Photobooth Props Ltd and another v NEPBH Ltd and others [2023] EWHC 755 (IPEC) (25 April 2023)). Importance of this Case The reason for discussing this case is that interim costs orders are rare in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Cour...

London Court of International Arbitration Author Mar9254   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commmons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords justices Lewison, Popplewell and Birss) S3D Interactive Inc v Oovee Ltd [2022] WLR(D) 516, [2022] EWCA Civ 1665 This was an appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Butcher to enforce a peremptory order of an arbitrator under s.42 of the Arbitration Act 1996 notwithstanding the appellant's contention that the arbitration agreement had been repudiated. The parties managed to resolve their differences after the appeal was heard but before judgment was delivered.  Because of public interest in the issue, their lordships stated how they would have decided the appeal had it not been settled.  Arbitration In "What is Arbitration"  the World Intellectual Property Organization  defined arbitration as  "a procedure in which a dispute is submitted, by agreement of the parties, to one or more arbitrators who mak...

Ebenezer Scrooge and Marley's Ghost Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Matcus Smith) Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd and Another v Generics UK Ltd (t/a Mylan) and anothe r  [2021] EWHC 530 (Pat) (12 March 2021) This was an action by Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd   ("Neurim")   the proprietor of European patent (UK) 1 441 702 B1   and Flynn Pharma Ltd ("Flynn"), its purported exclusive licensee, to restrain the infringement of that patent by Generics UK Ltd. and Mylan UK Healthcare Ltd. There was also a counterclaim by the defendants (referred to jointly as "Mylan") for the revocation of the patent on grounds of anticipation, obviousness and insufficiency.  This action and counterclaim came on for trial before Mr Justice Marcus Smith between 29 Oct and 5 Nov 2020.  At first, Neurim was victorious.   By para [148] of his judgment in  Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd and another v Generics UK Ltd and another [2020] EWHC 32...