Showing posts from July, 2017

Copyright: Primary Infringement - Communicating a Work to the Public

Jane Lambert Copyright  is defined by s.1 (1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 ( "the CDPA" )  as  "a property right" which subsists in accordance with Part I of the Act in original artistic, dramatic, literary and musical work, broadcasts, films and sound recordings and typography. A work in which copyright subsists is known as "a copyright work" pursuant to s.1 (2). The owner of a copyright in a copyright work has the exclusive right to do certain acts that are restricted to the copyright owner (see s.2 (1) CDPA). More importantly, the copyright owner has the exclusive right to prevent others from doing those acts which are often referred to as "restricted acts". There are two categories of restricted acts: Primary Infringement which I discussed in Copyright: What is meant by "Primary Infringement" on 21 Sept 2008; and Secondary Infringement which I discussed in Copyright: What is meant by "Seco

Can a business recover compensation if a state fails to protect its intellectual assets? The decision in Eli Lilly & Co. v Canada suggests "maybe".

Downing College, Cambridge Photo I Hunte r Reproduction licensed by the copyright owner Source Wikipedia Jane Lambert Case No. UNCT/14/2  Eli Lilly & Co. v Government of Canada, (16 March 2017) ICSID At 10:00 on 17 Aug 2017 I shall give a talk to the IP Summer School at Cambridge entitled  Bilateral Investment Treaties & Exporters' Rights Post-Brexit .   If you want to hear it there is still space on the course.  There are lots of distinguished speakers  who will speak on many other interesting topics . There will also be an exhibition, reception and other social events.  You can book your place  here . Why this is topical The reason I have been asked to speak on the topic is that "securing new trading agreements with other countries" is one of the objectives announced in the Brexit white paper . Unfortunately, many of the countries that we might wish to approach are on the US Trade Representative's watch list or even its pr

The Supreme Court's Judgment in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and Others: how to understand it and why it is important

The Middlesex Guildhall, Site of the Supreme Court Photo Christine Smith Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 International Licence Source  Wikipedia Jane Lambert Supreme Court (Lords Neuberger, Mance, Clarke, Sumption and Hodge)   Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and others   [2017] UKSC 48 (12 July 2017) What the Appeal was about The pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Co  ( "Lilly" ) has developed a drug called  pemetrexed  which it markets under the brand name Alimta for the treatment of various types of cancer. Used on its own, pemetrexed has unpleasant side effects that can sometimes be fatal but these can be avoided when it is administered as a compound called pemetrexed disodium in combination with vitamin B12. The use of pemetrexed disodium in the manufacture of a medicament for use in combination with vitamin B12 (and, optionally, folic acid) for the treatment of cancer is monopolized in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain and a

Registered Designs: The First Appeal to an Appointed Person in a Designs Case

Jane Lambert Martin Howe QC   Ahmet Erol v Sumaira Javaid   BL O/253/17 12 June 2017 The Registered Designs Act 1949  was passed the same year as the Patents Act 1949. S.85 (2)  of the Patents Act 1949 established a Patents Appeal Tribunal ("PAT") which heard appeals from hearing officers. There was a corresponding provision under s.28  of the Registered Designs Act 1949 which established a Registered Designs Appeal Tribunal ("RDAT"). The PAT was abolished by the Patents Act 1977 but the RDAT trundled on until the Intellectual Property Act 2014 came into force (see Jane Lambert  How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 changes British Registered Design Law   19 June 2014 JD Supra). S.10 (4) of that Act repealed s.28 of the Registered Designs Act 1949 and with it the RDAT.  S.10 (2) of the 2014 Act inserted new sections 27A and 27B into the 1949 Act which gave those who wished to appeal against a decision of a hearing officer a choice between appea