NIPC Law

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 Raysonho Licence CC 1,0     Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd and others (FRAND CMC Judgment ) [2021] EWHC 493 (Pat) (4 March 2021) This was an application for an order under Part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules requiring the 9th to 12th defendants ("the Xiaomi defendants") to answer the claimants; requests for further information of their statement of case.  The claimants had served over 100 requests upon the Xiaomi defendants on 12 Feb 2021 most of which those defendants had offered to answer by 16 March 2021. However, there were 2 requests that they refused to answer on the grounds that they were requests for expert evidence to which the claimants were not entitled until the exchange of experts' reports. At a case management conference before Mr Justice Mellor on 2 March 2021, the claimants applied for an order requiring the 9th to 12th defendants to answer all 100 ...

Author Odor  Licence Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 unported Source Wikipedia Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Lewison, Lindblom and Flaux)  A P Racing Ltd v Alcon Components Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1420 (21 June 2018)  This was an appeal by the claimant company, A P Racing Ltd ( "AP" ) , against the decision of His Honour Judge Hacon in AP Racing Ltd v Alcon Components Ltd [2017] EWHC 248 (IPEC) (15 Feb 2017).  His Honour held that one of 7 disk brake calipers manufactured by Alcon Components Ltd ( "Alcon" )  infringed UK patent no. GB 2,452,690  for a disc brake caliper body and a disc brake caliper comprising such a body but the other 6 did not. AP appealed against the finding of non-infringement in relation to 2 of Alcon's calipers, CAR 1249 and CAR 37. The appeal came on before Lords Justices Lewison, Lindblom and Flaux and the lead judgment was delivered by Lord Justice Lewison.  His lordship did not ment...

I mentioned Eli Lilly's claim against Canada for compensation under art 1110  of the North American Free Trade Agreement ( "NAFTA" ) in  Bilateral Investment Treaties: Claiming Compensation from Foreign Governments under Bilateral Investment Treaties for failing to provide adequate IP Protection   27 July 2013 and  Bilateral Investment Treaties: Eli Lilly and Co. v Government of Canada   2 Jan 2014 as well as my article  " Bilateral Investment Treaties: A Remedy for SME? " which was published in Issue 12 of Volume 35 of the European Intellectual Property Review on page 759. Following Eli Lilly's Notice of Arbitration   which I mentioned in January the parties appointed Professor Albert Jan van den Berg , Mr Gary Born and  Sir Daniel Bethlehem KCMG, QC  as arbitrators. Eli Lilly designated its Notice of Arbitration as its statement of claim by a letter from its lawyers dated 14 May 2014.  The arbitrators have made ...