Showing posts from March, 2016

The Institute for Capitalizing on Creativity: "Tales from the Drawing Board"

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport refers collectively to the following industries as "the creative industriels":
Advertising and marketingArchitectureCraftsProduct design, graphic design and fashion designFilm, TV, video, radio and photographyIT, software, video games and computer servicesPublishing and translationMuseums, galleries and librariesMusic, performing arts, visual arts and cultural education According to the Creative Industries Economic Estimates published by the Department in January of this year, the gross value added ("GVA") for the creative industries was £84.1 billion in 2014 and accounted for 5.2% of the UK economy. Between 1997 and 2014, the GVA of those industries increased by 6.0% each year compared to 4.3% for the UK economy.  It accounted for 3.9% of UK GVA in 1997 and increased to 5.2 per cent in 2014. Those industries employed 1.8 million individuals in 2014 in both creative and support jobs.  The creative industries' exports …

Supreme Court upholds Court of Appeal in Trunki

The judgment of the Supreme Court in PMS International Group Plc v Magmatic Ltd[2016] UKSC 12 has attracted a lot of flak over the last 24 hours much of it unjustified. According to the BBC website, Mr Robert Law, the founder of the Magmatic Ltd. which supplies Trunki suitcases, predicted chaos after the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision that I discussed in Registered Community Designs: Magmatic Ltd v PMS International Ltdon4 March 2014. In that decision the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against Mr Justice Arnold's finding that the Kiddee Cases shown below had infringed Magmatic Ltd.'s registered Community design the representation of which appears above (see Trunki loses ride-on animal suitcase court case9 March 2016 BBC).

While I have every sympathy with Mr Law who must have spent enormous sums on fruitless litigation and will no doubt face more expense after detailed assessment of the other side's costs there would have been far greater unce…

The Draft Patents (European Patent with Unitary Effect and Unified Patent Court) Order 2016

In Implementing the Unitary Patent in the UK22 Feb 2016 I discussed the consultation on the implementation of the Unified Patent Court Agreement in the legal systems of the United Kingdom. The consultation document, which was entitled Technical Review and Call for Evidence on Secondary Legislation Implementing the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and EU Regulations Establishing the Unitary Patent, contained a draft statutory instrument upon which the public's views were canvassed. I discussed the responses to that consultation and the government's reply. The government has now published a draft statutory instrument known as The Patents (European Patent with Unitary Effect and Unified Patent Court) Order 2016 which will come into effect on the date of entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court.

The Draft Order

The draft order consists of three articles:
Art 1 concerns citation, the entry into effect and the extent of the order;Art 2 amends the Patents Act 197…

Account of Profits - OOO Abbott and Another v Design & Display Ltd and Another

When a patent is infringed the patentee has the choice of an inquiry as to damages or an account of profits under s.61 (1) of the Patents Act 1977.  A similar choice is available to any other intellectual property right owner whose right is infringed. In OOO Abbott and another v Design & Display Ltd and another [2016] EWCA Civ 95 Lord Justice Lewison set out the basic principles at para [7] of his judgment:
"Section 61 (1) (d) of the Patents Act 1977 entitles a patentee to claim against an infringer an account of the profits "derived by him from the infringement". An account of profits is confined to profits actually made, its purpose being not to punish the defendant but to prevent his unjust enrichment. The underlying theory is that the infringer is treated as having carried on his business (to the extent that it infringes) on behalf of the patentee. The broad principle is that the patentee is entitled to profits that have been earned by the use of his invention.…

UPC Mediation Rules

Art 35 (1) of the Unified Patent Court Agreement establishes a patent mediation and arbitration centre with seats in Ljubljana and Lisbon. Its purpose is to provide facilities for mediation and arbitration of patent disputes falling within the scope of that Agreement. The Centre is required by art 35 (3) to establish Mediation and Arbitration Rules and by art 35 (4) to draw up a list of mediators and arbitrators to assist the parties in the settlement of their dispute.

On 15 Feb 2016 the Preparatory Committee published the latest draft Mediation Rules for the Centre. These Rules will be incorporated into every mediation agreement. Art 2 (1) of the draft Rules states that the mediation service of the Centre offers support in the settlement of disputes relating to European patents and European patents with unitary effects for which the Unified Patent Court  is exclusively competent. It will be open to the parties include any other disposable right or obligation factually or legally li…