NIPC Law

I mentioned this litigation on the 12 and 21 Dec 2010 . In my latter case note I reported that the judge had found claims by Media CAT Ltd. against 27 defendants and listed them to come on before him on 17 January 2011. I advised those defendants to take legal advice and if possible appear by counsel and that is precisely what most of them did. Shortly before the 17 the claimant's solicitor tried to discontinue the claims against the defendants and vacate the hearing making clear that he intended to reissue the proceedings. The judge appears to have raised of his own motion the question whether the court's permission would be required for discontinuance and asked whether any step could be taken in the litigation without the consent of the copyright owner. The defendants' counsel indicated that they would be seeking wasted costs against the claimant's solicitors. The only thing that saved those solicitors from being ordered to show cause there and then was that their c...

This was Mr Justice Henderson's judgment in the trial of an action between two Gibraltar based online gambling concerns. The claimant in 32Red Plc v WHG (International) Ltd and others [2011] EWHC 62 (Ch) (21 Jan 2011) had sued for infringement of Community trade mark 2814424 and British trade mark 2509861 . The defendants had counterclaimed for invalidation of those registrations. The signs to which the claimants objected were the words "32vegas.com", "32vegas" and "32v" and three devices incorporating the numeral 32. In a rather long judgment, His Lordship identified the following issues and considered them in the following order: whether the CTM been infringed under art 9 (1) (b) of the CTM regulation? whether it had been infringed under art 9 (1) (c); whether the CTM registration was invalid; whether the British trade mark registration was invalid; and whether the British mark had been infringed. Mr. Justice Henderson found that the ...

This was an appeal against the following judgments of Mr Justice Floyd: Nokia GmbH v Ipcom GmbH & Co KG [2009] EWHC 3482 (Pat) (18 Jan 2010) ("the main judgment"); [2009] EWHC 3034 (Pat) (20 Nov 2009) ("the first amendment judgment"); and [2010] EWHC 789 (Pat) (31 March 2009) ("the second amendment judgment"). The litigation concerned two patents which the trial judge described as follows: "The two patents relate to cellular mobile phone technology. Broadly speaking, the first of the patents, European Patent (UK) No. 540 808 ("808"), is concerned with the way in which the mobile phone synchronises itself with the transmissions it receives from the base station. The second of the patents, European Patent (UK) No. 1 186 189 ("189"), is concerned with management of the right of the mobile phone to connect to the network." In the appeal, Lord Justice Jacob referred to 808 as the "synch patent" and 189 as the "...

I should first like to wish my readers a happy New Year. Good riddance to the old one which was awful. After the emergency budget in June virtually every SME in England seemed to go to earth. The explanation is not hard to fathom. Litigation is funded largely on tick. So, too, is new product design and development. With the banks rebuilding their balance sheets and making only the payments that they really have to make, such as bonuses to their executives and traders, frivolous matters such as branding and innovation just have to wait. A sign of the times is that Judge Birss's spanking new intellectual property court is posting reports of decisions on paper like the Media CAT cases or case management conferences such as Westwood v Knight. The first case of 2011 is much more exciting. A summary judgment application would you believe. In Fitco Inc. v Haugh [2011] EWPCC 1 (6 Jan 2011) a former director of a company that had made its peace with the claimants, was sued for join...

I am grateful to Mr John Rogers for bringing Media CAT Ltd. v Billington [2010] EWPCC 18 (17 Dec 2010) to my attention. It appears that Judge Birss QC and his clerk reviewed all the cases in his list and found 13 more that had been brought by Media CAT in September and October plus another 14 in November. All involve similar issues to the cases I mentioned in my case note of 12 Dec 2010. Many of them consist only of a claim form and particulars of claim . At least one defendant seems not to be without a response pack. The judge has listed all those cases for directions at a hearing to take place on 17 Jan 2011 of his own motion under CPR 3.3 (1) and (4). II should be interested to know what Media CAT's solicitors have to say about it. The Bar provides pro bono advice and representation through the Bar Pro Bono Unit . Anyone affected should have a word with his local CAB, law centre or MP first. I am sure most IP chambers would be glad to take referrals from the Unit. We certa...

An interesting little domain name case that is curious in several respects: first, that it was brought in the courts at all rather than before an administrative panel appointed by one of the UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) dispute resolution service providers ; secondly, that it was brought in England when none of the parties appears to have anything to do with England, thirdly, that it was brought in the Technology and Construction Court which is part of the Queen’s Bench Division rather than the Chancery Division or even the Patents County Court; and fourthly, the claimant’s cause of action. The Facts In Lifestyle Management Ltd. v Frater [2010] EWHC 3258 (TCC) (10 Dec 2010) the claimants were companies registered in Kenya and the British Virgin Islands while the defendant was in Scotland. The claimants have a website at www.offshorelsm.com which indicates that they provide services “for the international investor and the professional expatriate”. Their tradi...

I n Media C.A.T. Ltd. v A and others [2010] EWPCC 17, His Honour Judge Birss QC had 8 requests for judgment. The particulars of claim in each case alleged that: "The defendant, someone authorised by him to use his internet connection, or someone who gained access to the defendant's internet connection due to the router to that connections having no or no adequate security was at all material times a user of the peer-to-peer file sharing software known as BitTorrent 6.1.2 which allows the user to share digital media content files on a network with other users." The relief sought in the requests for judgment included "a permanent injunction pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court; ordering the defendant to take reasonable steps to safeguard their internet connection being used, either through the defendant's personal computer and/or third parties taking advantage of the defendant's unsecured wireless connection to repeat the infringement of the clai...

According to the knowledgebase of its website TVCatchup is an “internet television platform” which enables subscribers to watch live television on a computer or mobile device from anywhere in the UK. In ITV Broadcasting Ltd and Others v TV Catch Up Ltd [2010] EWHC 3063 (Ch) (25 Nov 2010) Mr. Justice Kitchin described that company’s activities at paragraphs [3] to [4] of his judgment as follows: “3. The defendant operates a website at www.tvcatchup.com which allows members of the public to watch live UK television, including the claimants' channels, on their computers, iPhones and games consoles. Any member of the public wishing to access the service must first become a member. He can then select one of over 50 channels by pressing on the appropriate icon, whereupon he is taken to a new screen on which the defendant provides a stream of the programme being broadcast on that channel. There is a slight delay before the member sees the programme because the defendant first shows on...

In The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others v Meltwater Holding BV and Others [2010] EWHC 3099 (Ch) (26 Nov 2010) Mrs. Justice Proudman had to decide whether the customers of a commercial media monitoring service needed a licence from the copyright licensing agency of the British newspaper industry to receive emailed reports containing data that had been extracted by the monitoring service from the websites of British newspapers. The parties to this action were · the leading British newspaper publishers and the Newspaper Licensing Agency , their copyright licensing agency ( “the publishers” ); · Meltwater Holding BV and its British subsidiary the companies providing newspaper monitoring service ( “Meltwater” ) and · the trade association of the companies that used Meltwater’s services ( “the end-users” ). By this action, the publishers sought a declaration that the end-users require a licence or consent from the publ...

Jane Lambert Revised 27 Oct 2017 This appeal was a rare inventor’s compensation case. S.7 (2) (a) of the Patents Act 1977 provides that a patent for an invention may be granted primarily to the inventor or joint inventors. However, this provision is trumped by paragraph (b) where a person by virtue of any enactment or rule of law or by virtue of an enforceable term of any agreement entered into with the inventor before the making of the invention was at the time of the making of the invention entitled to the whole of the property in it (other than equitable interests) in the United Kingdom. Such a person would typically be the inventor’s employer either by virtue of an express term in the inventor’s contract of employment or s.39 of the Patents Act 1977. If the inventor is employed in a capacity in which he or she is likely to invent something such as a member of a research and development team in a private company or other institution he or she will be paid a...