NIPC Law

Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Recorder Campbell) Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Premier Alloy Wheels (UK) Ltd and others [2020] EWHC 2094 (Pat) (30 July 2020) This was an action by the motor manufacturer. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG  ("BMW)  for trade mark and registered Community design ("RCD") infringement, passing off and, in the case of one the defendants, Devon Thompson ("Devon"), breach of contract.  There was also a counterclaim for revocation of the RCD.  The main defendant was a company called DGT Wheels and Tyres Ltd ("DGT") the ordinary shares of which were owned by  Jerome Layzell ("JL") who was also its only director.   DGT had a warehouse on an industrial estate in Basildon as well as retail premises elsewhere in that town.   The warehouse was operated by another company called Premier Alloy Wheels (UK) Ltd ("Premier") which was owned and run by JL's stepfather, Devon. Devon was in prison when the trial took...

The Rolls Building Author  Basher Eyre  Licence Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court (HH Judge Hacon):  Cantel Medical (UK) Ltd and another v ARC Medical Design Ltd   [2018] EWHC 345 (Pat) This was a claim by Cantel Medical (UK) Ltd and Cantel (UK) Limited  for the revocation or declarations of non-infringement of the following patents , registered Community designs ("RCD") and unregistered design rights : European patent number 2 575 590 for a covering for a medical scoping device ; UK patent number 2 478 081 for a covering for medical scoping device ; RCD number 001856121-0001 ; RCD number 002523191-0001 ; the design right in the design on an attachment to a colonoscope known as the Endocuff; and the design right in the design of another attachment known as the Endocuff Vision. ARC Medical Design Ltd ., which is the registered...

The "Denver" claimed as a work of artistic craftsmanship  in Hensher v Restawhile   [1976] AC 64 Source  Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law, Virtual Museum Despite the submissions of Sir Robin Jacob , leading academic lawyers, the IP Federation , the IP Bar Association  and the other intellectual property professions HM government seems determined to force through criminal sanctions for registered design and registered Community design infringement. Why HMG has set and indeed held to this course in the face of almost unanimous opposition from those who know most about intellectual property is a mystery but there it is. Governments do silly things sometimes of which the Dangerous Dogs Act is but one example. What happens next I have done all that I can as a citizen to persuade HMG to think again by   explaining in this blog why this proposal is a very bad idea ,  lobbying my MP  and even  remons...

In " Samsung v Apple : "Be you never so high ....."  2 Nov 2012 I discussed the hearing of Samsung's complaint that Apple had failed to comply with the Court of Appeal's publicity order.   The terms of that order and Apple's purported compliance with it are to be found at  " Apple v Samsung - the Appeal" 26 Oct 2012. On the 2 Nov 2012 I promised to analyse the transcript should it ever be published. The Court of. Appeal gave its reasons for the order that I had previously discussed in  Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc (No. 3)  [2012] EWCA Civ 1430 (9 Nov 2012). I apologize for the 6 week delay between their publication and this analysis but my readers will learn very shortly that I have not exactly been idle during this time. Samsung objected to Samsung's notice on the following grounds: First it argued that it was not open to Apple to break up the text ordered by the court by adding in the middle of it matter that had not been o...

On 9 July 2012 HH Judge Birss QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, held in Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc . [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat) that Samsung's Galaxy 10.1, 8.9 and 7.7 tablet computers  did not infringe Apple Inc.'s Community design number 000181607-0001 . I discussed that judgment in this blog in " Apple v Samsung - Compare and Contrast" on 28 Aug 2012. A few days afterwards in  Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc (No. 2) [2012] EWHC 2049 (Pat) (18 July 2012) Judge Birss ordered Apple to display the following notice on the home page of their website and in advertisements in the national press: "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design 000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyper...

Following its victory in California, Apple's shares rose by 1.88% while Samsung's fell by 7% even in Korea where Samsung won a partial victory (see "Apple seeks to ban sale of eight Samsung phones in US" BBC 27 Aug 2012). It was perhaps in anticipation of this reaction that Samsung applied for an injunction to restrain Apple "from representing to any person that the making and/or offering and/or putting on the market and/or importing and/or exporting and/or using the Claimant's Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Tab 8.9 and Galaxy Tab 7.7 tablet computers and/or stocking the Claimant's Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Tab 8.9 and Galaxy Tab 7.7 tablet computers for those purposes by the Claimant in the European Union infringes Registered Community Design 000181,607-0001" after its victory in    Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat) (9 July 2012). Judge Birss refused to make that order in Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc  (N...

As almost everyone on the planet will have heard by now, Apple Inc . won a convincing victory over Samsung Electronics Ltd . and its American subsidiaries in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on the 24 Aug 2012.  The claim was for the infringement of various US "utility" and "design patents" belonging to Apple and "dilution" and infringement of Apple's "trade dress" - causes of action that appear to be roughly equivalent to patent and registered design infringement and passing off in the UK and most other common law countries.   Samsung counterclaimed for the revocation of Apple's patents and damages and other relief for the infringement of its own patents.  As the 7th amendment to the US constitution guarantees trial by jury for claims over US$20, the claim and counterclaim came before a jury.  In its 20 page verdict that jury found for Apple on just about every issue and awarded Apple US$1,049,343,540 in da...