Showing posts from 2015

The Importance of Keeping Promises: Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Sandoz GmbH and Others

Rolls Building In   Swiss Style Claims: Warner-Lambert Companv Actavis   25 Jan 2015 I explained that Warner-Lambert LLC had a patent for a drug called pregabalin for treating epilepsy and GAD (generalized anxiety disorder). That patent expired in 2013 although the monopoly was extended for a short time by a supplementary protection certificate which has now lapsed. Warner-Lambert discovered a new use for pregabalin in the treatment of neuropathic pain for which it was granted a new patent. Actavis sought the revocation of the new patent on grounds of obviousness and insufficiency and applied for permission to market pregabalin for the treatment of epilepsy and GAD. The case that I discussed in my case note was an unsuccessful attempt by Warner-Lambert to impose conditions on the sale of pregabilin in the UK (see   Warner -Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF and others [2015] EWHC 72 (Pat)). The action came on for trial before Mr Justice Arnold in    Generic

Defending your Domain Name in the UDRP

Partial View of the Internet Author  The Opte Project Source  Wikipedia Creative Commons Licence Whenever you apply to register or to renew the registration of, a generic top-level domain name such as one ending in ".com", ".org" or ".biz" you represent and warrant to the registrar that: (a) the statements that you make in your agreement with the registrar are complete and accurate; (b) the registration of the domain name will not to your knowledge, infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party; (c) you are not registering the domain name for an unlawful purpose; and (d) you will not knowingly use the domain name in violation of any applicable laws or regulations. It is your responsibility and not the registrar's to determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone else's rights. What Rights might be violated or infringed? These are usually registered trade ma

Patents - Infringement and Revocation: Glass and others v Freysinnet Ltd.

In Glass and Others v    Freyssinet Ltd   [2015] EWHC 2972 (IPEC) the inventors of a treatment process for concrete  sued Freysinnet Ltd . ( "Freysinnet" ) for infringement of their patent in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court. Freysinnet counterclaimed for revocation of the patent on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The action and counterclaim came on before His Honour Judge Hacon. The Invention The technical problem that the patented invention addressed was summarized by Judge Hacon at paragraph [3] of his judgment: "Reinforced concrete is concrete containing bars made from another material, usually steel, which confer added strength (known as 'rebars'). The strength in compression of the concrete is complemented by the higher tensile strength and ductility of steel. Calcium hydroxide and alkaline salts within the concrete combine to create an iron oxide film on the surface of the steel which protects it from corrosion. That film may

Parallel Imports - Flynn Pharma Ltd v Drugsrus Ltd

One of the fundamental principles of the European Union is that it "shall comprise a customs union which shall cover all trade in goods and which shall involve the prohibition between Member States of customs duties on imports and exports and of all charges having equivalent effect, and the adoption of a common customs tariff in their relations with third countries" (art 28 (1) of the  Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( "TFEU" ). Art 34 of the TFEU further provides: "Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States." However, this is subject to the following exception provided by art 36: "The provisions of Articles 34 and 35 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals

"No Woman No Cry" BSI and another v Blue Mountain Music Appeal

Bob Marley Author Eddie Marlin Source Wikipedia Creative Commons Licence Between 1973 and 1976 Bob Marley wrote the words and composed the music for 13 songs of which the most famous was No Woman No Cry . At that time Marley was under contract to a New York company called Cayman Music Inc . ( "CMI" ) which should have acquired the copyrights in those songs and the resulting royalties. To get round that contract Marley pretended that those works had been written by other individuals who collected those revenues and may possibly have shared them with him. Marley died in 1981. After his death CMI sued Marley's estate in the New York courts for the moneys that it should have received under the contract and Marley's personal representative counterclaimed for rescission of Marley's contract with CMI. CMI's claim was found to be statute barred in New York but no decision was ever made on the counterclaim. On 20 March 1992 Is

How to complete a Complaint form for the UDRP

Partial View of the Internet Author The Opte Project  Source Wikipedia   Creative Commons Licence I have been a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization's domain name dispute resolution panel  since 2003 and I have seen a fair number of complaints  in domain name disputes in that time. I have also settled a few of my own as counsel to trade mark proprietors or business owners who object to the registration of a domain name that is the same as, or similar to, their trade mark or business name. The complaint is an important document as it is usually the only source of evidence and argument that a panellist can rely upon It is rarely prepared well. More often and not I receive screeds of irrelevant matter, bad points, repetition of the same point and disjointed argument all presented in a tone of exaggerated indignation backed up by lengthy annexes all of which have to be read and most of which are next to useless. This short article is intended