NIPC Law

Author  Satoshi Nakamoto  Source  Wikimedia   Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Mellor)  Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 1809 (Ch) (16 July 2024) Immediately after hearing the evidence and arguments in a trial to determine whether Dr Craig Steven Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto, the originator of the Bitcoin cryptocurrency, Mr Justice Mellor announced on 14 March 2024 that Dr Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto. The question of whether or not Dr Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto had been an issue in two actions:  first an action that the  Crypto Open Patent Alliance ("COPA")  had brought against Dr Wright and, secondly, an action that Dr Wright and two companies that he controlled had brought against BTC CORE and others,   The learned judge set out his reasons for finding that Dr Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto in Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 1198 (Ch) on 20 May 2024.  I discussed that judgmen...

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Nicholas Caddick QC)  Bei Yu Industrial Co v Nuby (UK) LLP   [2022] EWHC 652 (IPEC) (22 March 2022) This was an account of profits. In the Chancery Division which deals with most intellectual property claims infringement proceedings take place in two phases. There is a hearing known as a "trial" to determine whether the right has been infringed and by whom.  In the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court or IPEC that takes place some 15 months or so after the issue of the claim form. If the claimant is successful at trial, the court usually orders the defendant to stop the infringement on pain of imprisonment or other punishment for disobedience.   If the successful claimant so wishes, the court will then decide how much money the defendant should pay him or her for the past infringement. Claimants have a choice.  They can request compensation for the loss or damage they may have sustained as a r...

Author  Thomas Woolner   Source Wikimedia   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Advanced Bionics AG and another v MED-El Elektromedizinische Gerate GmbH [2021] EWHC 2415 (Pat) (31 Aug 2021) In International Patent Litigation - Abbott Laboratories Ltd v Dexcom Inc . 3 March 2022 I discussed the so-called German "injunction gap" and an application to expedite the trial of a revocation action in England in an attempt to beat it.   In  Abbott Laboratories Ltd v Dexcom Incorporated [2021] EWHC 2246 (Pat) (6 Aug 2021) the application for expedition was refused. In  Advanced Bionics AG and another v MED-El Elektromedizinische Gerate GmbH [2021] EWHC 2415 (Pat) (31 Aug 2021), a similar application to the same judge succeeded.   In my case note on Abbott I wrote: "In Germany, unlike the United Kingdom, it is not possible to challenge the validity of a patent in infringement proceedings. Alleged infringers who wish to challenge the valid...

Author  dozenist   Licence CC BY-SA 2,5   Source Wikimedia Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr James Mellor QC)  C.T. Dent Ltd v Atias and another [2020] EWHC 2720 (Ch) (14 Oct  2020)   This was an application for interim injunctive relief in an action for breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful interference with property, infringement of copyright, infringement of the sui generis database right and misuse of confidential information. The claimant was CT Dent Ltd  ("Dent"), a dental scanning company. The defendants were Kfir Yizhaq Atias ("Mr Atias") a former director of Dent and Dental Scan Ltd ("Scan"), a company that Mr Atias founded on 9 Sept 2020. The application came on before Mr James Mellor QC sitting as a judge of the High Court on 2 Oct 2020, He granted injunctions on 5 Oct 2020 and gave his reasons in  C.T. Dent Ltd v Atias and another [2020] EWHC 2720 (Ch)  on14 Oct 2020. The Facts Until 2 Sept 2020, Mr Atias was one of three directo...

Author : Pearson Scott Foresman Reproduced with kind permission of the copyright owner Source  Wikipedia Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Daniel Alexander QC)  Freshasia Foods Ltd v Jing Lu [2018] EWHC 3644 (Ch) The first intellectual property judgment of the New Year is Mr Daniel Alexander QC's  decision in Freshasia Foods Ltd v Jing Lu [2018] EWHC 3644 (Ch) (4 Jan 2019).  The learned deputy judge seems to have made his order on 19 Dec 2018 after a hearing that had taken place the previous day but he delivered the reasons for his order on 4 Jan 2019. The Dispute Mr Alexander described  Freshasia Foods Ltd . ("Freshasia") as "a UK registered company which supplies food products, particularly dumplings and sliced meats, to Chinese retail shops and restaurants." He added that it has between 100 and 200 employees, a turnover in the millions of pounds and about 500 customers in total in the UK and the EU. He n...

Author Milkerfish Source Wikipedia   Creative Commons   CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication Court of Appeal (Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justices Kitchin and Floyd)    Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computer Incorporation and Others [2017] EWCA Civ 1526 (11 Oct 2017)   Jane Lambert In FRAND   8 Oct 2017 I discussed the terms upon which patents for inventions that are essential to a standard are licensed.  I noted that courts around the world had held that those terms should be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory  - in other words, FRAND. The Court of Appeal's decision in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computer Incorporation and Others [2017] EWCA Civ 1526 (11 Oct 2017) concerned the construction of a clause licensing such patents. It is important to note, however, that none of the judges who heard the appeal mentioned the acronym, FRAND, and it appeared only twice in the judgment of the trial ju...

In Ifejika v Ifejika and another [2011] EWPCC 31 (23 Nov 2011) His Honour Judge Birss QC (as he then was) ordered among other things an inquiry (or alternatively, by implication, an account) in relation to a lens care product the design rights in which he held to have been infringed by the claimant's brother by of a competing product. The claimant elected an account of profits and this came on before HH Judge Hacon on 17 June 2014 ( Ifejika v Ifejika and another [2014] EWHC 2625 (IPEC) (31 July 2014)). This case is interesting for two reasons. First, it was an account of profits rather than an inquiry as to damages. Accounts are not common in intellectual property cases. Secondly, neither side was legally represented at the hearing so the judge had to do justice as best he could. He was therefore bound to explain the principles by which an account is to be taken. A factor that might have applied in other circumstances was that the defendant could have a...