NIPC Law

Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Arnold)  Illumina, Inc and another v TDL Genetics Ltd and others [2019] EWHC 1497 (Pat) (17 June 2019) This was an action for patent infringement with a counterclaim for revocation on grounds of obviousness and insufficiency. The patent in suit was European patent EP1524321 for Non-invasive detection of fetal genetic traits  which was granted to the second claimant. The first claimant was the second claimant's exclusive licensee.  The third defendant has developed a non-invasive prenatal test called "Harmony" which the first defendant offers to its patients.  The claimants allege that it infringes their patent.  The action and counterclaim came on before Mr Justice Arnold. The Patent The invention for which the patent was granted reads as follows: "Blood plasma of a pregnant woman contains both fetal and maternal circulatory extracellular DNA, the latter forming the major part (generally ...

Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Atnold)   Allergan, Inc and another v Aspire Pharma Ltd [2019] EWHC 1085 (Pat) (3 May 2019)  Allergan Inc  is the proprietor of European patent EP1753434  for an enhanced bimatoprost ophthalmic solution which its English subsidiary, Allergan Ltd. exploits   by marketing a product containing 0.1 mg/ml (0.01%) bimatoprost for ophthalmic administration for the treatment of glaucoma under the trade mark Lumigan 01 mg/ml. Aspire Pharma Ltd and Accord Healthcare Ltd have obtained marketing authorizations to market generic versions of Lumigan 0.1 mg/ml which they do not dispute would infringe the patent. They contend that the patent is invalid on the ground of obviousness or, alternatively insufficiency. S.72 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 provides that the Patents or Intellectual Property Enterprise Court or the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks may revoke a patent for an i...

Standard YouTube Licence Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Nugee)  E Mishan & Sons, Inc (t/a Emson) v Hozelock Ltd and others [2019] EWHC 991 (Pat) (17 April 2019)   This was a claim for the infringement of two patents:   UK patent GB 2 490 276  for an expandable hose assembly and European patent EP 2 687 575  also for an expandable hose assembly. There was a counterclaim for the revocation of those patents on grounds of obviousness and, for a while, anticipation. This action and counterclaim came on before Mr Justice Nugee. The Invention The invention for which those patents were granted was a new type of garden hose. Conventional ones are made of plastic in a number of layers bonded together. They tended to be heavy. bulky and difficult to store.  They also tended to kink.  The invention avoided those difficulties. The inventor, Michael Berardi , made a hose consisting of two tubes, one inside the other.  The i...

Photo:  Myrabella  /  Wikimedia Commons  /  CC BY-SA 3.0 Jane Lambert Patents Court  (HH Judge Hacon) Ablynx NV and another  v Vhsquared Ltd and others [2019] EWHC 792 (Pat) (29 March 2019) In  Litigating in London after Halloween   26 July 2019 NIPC Brexit, I discussed the likely consequences of the intended repeal of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1–32 if the Johnson administration withdraws the United Kingdom from the European Union without a withdrawal agreement in accordance with art 50 (2) of the Treaty of European Union.  One Richard de Vere  wrote: "I almost feel silly asking, I read the blog twice and it’s not through a lack of trying... but can you simplify this and give some examples of how it will impac...

Author BTphotosUK Licence Attribution 2.0 Generi c Source Wikipedia Fiber to the x Jane Lambert On Monday I discussed Mr Justice Henry Carr's judgment in  TQ Delta, LLC v ZYXEL Communications Ltd and Another [2019] EWHC 562 (Pat) (11 March 2019) and mentioned the injunction he granted in  TQ Delta LLC v Zyxel Communications Ltd and another  [2019] EWHC 745 (Pat) (18 March 2019) (see Standard Essential Patents - TQ Delta, LLC v ZYXEL Communications Ltd   22 July 2019). Since then.  Since then, there have been two further hearings in the proceedings: one before Mr Justice Birss on 17 April ( TQ Delta, LLC v Zyxel Communications UK Ltd and another No 3 [2019] EWHC 1089 (Pat) (17 April 2019)) and the other before Mr Recorder Campbell QC on 19 June 2010 (see TQ Delta, LLC v Zyxel Communications UK Ltd and another [2019] EWHC 1597 (Pat) (19 June 2019)). History of the Litigation In his judgment, Mr Justice Birss noted that the action had ...

Basher Eyre /  Junction of Fetter Lane and Rolls Buildings  /  CC BY-SA 2.0 Jane Lambert Patents Court ( Mr Justice Henry Carr) TQ Delta, LLC v ZYXEL Communications Ltd and another [2019] EWHC 562 (Pat) (11 March 2019) This was a patent infringement action.  The patents in suit were European patent number EP1453268 for multicarrier communication with variable overhead rate  and European patent number EP1792430 for CRC counter normalisation . The claimant alleged that these are standard-essential patents "SEPs") - that is to say, it is impossible to comply with ITU recommended telecommunications standards for the transmission of data without using those patents. The Parties The claimant describes itself as  " a technology development and licensing company aimed at providing needed solutions for the communications industry and beyond." The homepage of its website adds that its technical investments span nea...

Court of Justice of the European Union Autho r Cedric Puisney Licence CC NY 2.0   Wikipedia Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Arnold)  Eli Lilly And Company v Genentech, Inc  No. 2 [2019] EWHC 388 (Pat) (1 March 2019)   One of the issues before Mr Justice Arnold when he tried Eli Lilly and Company and others v Genentech, Inc [2019] EWHC 387 (Pat) (1 March 2019) was whether Genentech was entitled to a supplemental protection certificate ("SPC"). A guidance note from the IPO published on 16 May 2014 and last updated on 27 June 2019 describes an SPC as a "form of IP that extends the protection of patented active ingredients present in pharmaceutical or plant protection products." The policy behind SPCs is as follows: "Pharmaceutical or plant protection products need regulatory approval to be sold in the UK and must obtain: a marketing authorisation or product licence If your patent protects the active ingredients used in t...