Showing posts from July, 2017

Copyright: Primary Infringement - Communicating a Work to the Public

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; andSecondary Infringement which I discussed in Copyright: What is meant by "Secondary Infringement"which I also wro…

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

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 priority watch risk (see Office of the United States Trade Representative 2017 Special 301 Report). There are various reasons why countries are on those …

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

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 number of other European countries by European patent number No 1 313 508. There are also corresponding patents for the same invention in many other countries around the world.

This medicine is no…

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

Jane Lambert
Martin Howe QCAhmet Erol v Sumaira JavaidBL 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 Law19 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 appealing to the Patents Court or "…