NIPC Law

Omalizumab structure Authors  Manav Segal, Jeffrey R Stokes, Thomas B. Casale Licence CC BY 2,5 Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Celltrion Inc v Genentech, Inc and another [2025] EWHC 174 (Pat) (30 Jan 2025)   This was an action by Celltrion Inc ("Celltrion") for the revocation of European patent (UK)  3 805 248 B1  for a "Process for concentration of antibodies and therapeutic products thereof" ("the patent") held by Genentech Inc ("Genentech") and Novartis AG ("Novartis") and a counterclaim by Genentech and Novartis against Celltrion and its UK subsidiary for infringement.  The action and counterclaim were tried by His Honour Judge Hacon between 24 Oct 2024 and 1 Nov 2024.  The learned judge delivered judgment on 30 Jan 2025 (see  Celltrion Inc v Genentech, Inc and another  [2025] EWHC 174 (Pat) (30 Jan 2025)).  By para [193] of his judgment, he found that the patent was valid and infringed. Th...

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (His Honour Judge Hacon) Babek International Ltd v Iceland Foods Ltd [2025] EWHC 547 (IPEC) (11 March 2025) This was an application by Iceland Foods Ltd ("Iceland") for summary judgment on its counterclaim for the invalidation of registered trade mark number  907527963  held by Babek International Ltd. ("Babek") for meat, fish, poultry and game, meat extracts, preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables, jellies, jams, competes, eggs, milk and milk products edible oils and fats in class 29 and scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto, industrial analysis and research services design and development of computer hardware and software in class 42.  In this action, Babek sued Iceland for infringing its trade mark by selling goods with a sign identical to the mark in respect of which the mark had been registered.   His Honour Judge Hacon heard the application on 2...

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ( Ian Karet)   Equisafety Ltd v Woof Wear Ltd [2024] EWHC 2478 (IPEC) (25 Sept 2024) This was an action by the Wirral-based company Equisafety Ltd ("Equisafety") for infringement of copyright in three high-visibility ("high vis") equestrian products. These were a waistcoat, an elasticated hat band, and a neckband for a horse some of which are shown in the above photos. The defendant, Woof Wear Ltd ("Woof Wear"), had exhibited similar goods at the Beta International Exhibition .  Woof Wear admitted that if copyright subsisted in those items and if the claimant company owned those copyrights then it would have infringed those rights.   Consequently, the issues to be tried were whether copyright subsisted in those high-vis items and, if it did, whether Equisafety owned those copyrights. The Preliminary Hearing At a hearing before Ms Pat Treacy on or about 24 Jan 2024, Equisafety was ordered to identify the...

Author Aurelien Guichard   Licence  CC BY-SA 2.0   Source Wikimedia   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterproise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  NAH Holdings Ltd and another KBF Enterprises Ltd and another [2022] EWHC 323 (IPEC) (16 Feb 2022) The latest definition of a trade mark is  "any sign which is capable-  (a) of being represented in the register in a manner which enables the registrar and other competent authorities and thepublic to determine the clear and precise subject matter of the protection afforded to the proprietor,and  (b) of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings" (see s.1 (1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994  as amended).  One of the grounds for refusing registration of a sign as a trade mark is that it does not satisfy the requirements of that section. Unsurprisingly there are very few cases on that point but one in which it was raised was  NAH Holdings Ltd and another v KBF...

Author: Nigel Cox Licence CC BY-SA 2.0 Source  Wikipedia M1 Motorway Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Adolf Nissen Elektrobau GmbH &Co KG v Horizont Group GmbH [2019] EWHC 3522 (IPEC) (18 Dec 2019) This was a claim for revocation on grounds of obviousness of UK patent number GB2410366 Mobile for a warning device for road traffic . The patentee was the Horizont Group GmbH  which is a private company incorporated with limited liability in Germany. The party seeking revocation was  Adolf Nissen Elektrobau GmbH & Co KG , a  German limited partnership with a limited company as the general partner .  The parties compete in the business of electric road traffic signs.  The action came on before His Honour Judge Hacon on 5 and 6 Nov 2019.  He delivered judgment in Adolf Nissen Elektrobau GmbH & Co KG v Horizont Group GmbH [2019] EWHC 3522 on 18 Dec 2019. The Invention ...

Jane Lambert In DKH Retail Ltd v H. Young (Operations) Ltd   the claimant, which claimed design rights and unregistered Community design in relation to the front portion and hood of a range of gilets sold under the product name Academy  under the Superdry brand  sued the defendant for importing and selling a range of Glaisdale gilets under the Animal brand . The defendant raised the usual defences on subsistence, ownership and infringement.  This case is interesting because it is the first judicial analysis of the effect of the deletion by s.1 (1) of the Intellectual Property Act 2014 of the words "any aspect of" from the definition of "design" in s.213 (2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. I had discussed that deletion in "How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 will change British Unregistered Design Right Law"   11 June 2014 and "The Intellectual Property Bill 2013"   28 May 2013.  Even though ...