NIPC Law

Jane Lambert Patents Court (HH Judge Hacon) Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and others v Aspire Pharma Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 711 (Pat) (27 March 2024) Rivaroxaban  is an anticoagulant medication used to treat and prevent blood clots, particularly deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary emboli and atrial fibrillation after hip or knee surgery.  Until the hearing of this application Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH, its holding and associated companies enjoyed a monopoly of the market for rivaroxaban in the UK, That was because Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH held a patent for the product as a compound which was extended until 1 April 2024 by a supplementary protection certificate. Aspire Pharma Ltd.  was one of several pharmaceutical companies that hoped to supply generic rivaroxaban upon the expiry of the SPC.  However, Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH also held European patent number 1 845 961 B1 for the treatment of thromboembolic disorders with rivaroxa...

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Ms. Pat Treacy)  Wise Payments Ltd v With Wise Ltd and other s [2024] EWHC 234 (IPEC) (9 Feb 2024) This was a case management conference before Ms Pat Treacy sitting as a deputy Enterprise Judge in an action for trade mark infringement and passing off and a counterclaim by the first defendant for passing off.  One of the issues to be decided in the CMC was whether Kristo Käärmann, Taavet Hinrikus and Dean Nash should be joined as defendants to the first defendant's counterclaim. Mr  Käärmann and Mr Hinrikus had founded the claimant company.  Mr Käärmann was the chief executive officer and a director of the claimant.  Mr Hinrikus had been the claimant's chairman and a director.  Mr Nash had been its secretary and general counsel. The first defendant brought its application to join Messrs Käärmann, Hinrikus and Nash under CPR20.5 , It also applied for permission to amend its defence and counterclaim...

Author   Fg2   Licence Copyright waived by the author   Jane Lamber t Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Cloud Cycle Ltd v Verifi LLC and another   [2024] EWHC 233 (IPEC) (7 Feb 2024) In this action and counterclaim Cloud Cycle Ltd ("CCL") is suing Verifi LLC ("Verifi") and GCP Applied Technologies (UK) Limited ("GCP") for a declaration of non-infringement of European Patent (UK) No. 1 720 689  ("the patent") and Verifi and GCP are counterclaiming for infringement of the patent.  Verifi and GCP applied for an interim injunction to restrain CCL from dealing with new customers in an allegedly infringing system for ascertaining the consistency of concrete known as "slump".  CCL responded with an application for summary judgment on its claim and dismissal of the counterclaim.  Both applications came on before His Honour Judge Hacon on 31 Jan 2024.  By para [20] of his judgment in  Cloud Cycle Ltd v Verif...

Author ERab123   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Sir Andrew McFarlane P, Lord Justice Arnold and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing) JC Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd and another [2023] EWCA Civ 840 (17 July 2023) This is an important case on the law of confidence and trade secrets as well as Patent Court Practice.  In   JC Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd and another  [2022] EWHC 1724 (Pat) (4 July 2022) which I discussed in  Patents - J C Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd   on 7 March 2023 the defendants, Manitou UK Ltd. and Manitou BF SA ("Manitour"), disclosed information relating to the configuration of the control system of their telehandlers  to a group of nominated lawyers and experts from both parties known as "a confidentiality club ". The reason Manitou limited their disclosure to that group was explained by their solicitor: "Manitou should be entitled to prot...

Author   Franzffm   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Douglas Campbell KC)  Lufthansa Technik AG v Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems and another [2023] EWHC 1136 (Pat) (12 May 2023) In these proceedings, Douglas Campbell KC was asked to consider the following questions: Can Lufthansa Technik AG ("Lufthansa") rely on additional ways of putting its case on infringement in the quantum stage which were not decided in the judgment on liability? Is Lufthansa specifically prevented from advancing certain issues (“the adjourned issues”) by reason of an order made by the trial judge after trial? The deputy judge decided the first in favour of Lufthansa and the second in favour of the defendants.  There was also an application by Lufthansa for permission to amend its statement of case to plead a point that had not been raised at trial which Mr Campbell refused.   Context Lufthansa   sued Astronics Advanc...