Articles, Case Notes, Presentations and In-depth Discussion of IP and Technology Law.
Subscribe to this blog
Follow by Email
How the Trade Secrets Directive affects Inventors
Since all patented inventions start out as trade secrets and many other inventions remain that way for various reasons, the implementation of Directive 2016/943 ("the Trade Secrets Directive") is an important day for inventors in the UK and throughout the rest of the EU. More
CPR 63.20 (2) requires those bringing claims in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC") including the small claims track to state whether they have complied with paragraph 7.1(1) and Annex A (paragraph 2) of the Practice Direction (Pre-Action Conduct). If they don't the defendant has an extra 28 days in which to file his or her defence under CPR 63.22 (3). But if you actually turn to the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct you will find that the old paragraph 7 and Annex A aren't there any more.
That is because the practice direction was updated on 29 April 2015. In their place, paragraph 6 provides:
"Steps before issuing a claim at court 6. Where there is a relevant pre-action protocol, the parties should comply with that protocol before commencing proceedings. Where there is no relevant pre-action protocol, the parties should exchange correspondence and information to comply with the objectives in paragraph 3, bearing in mind that compliance shou…
This was an action for infringement of copyright in a prototype for a bed linen range. An example of a duvet cover from that range appears at the top of the above photo together with an example of the allegedly infringing item at the bottom. The claimant's product, known as "Evangeline" was sold as part of the "Kylie Minogue at Home" range even though the prototype had been made by one of the claimant's employees and not by Kylie Minogue. The defendant's, called "Amore", was under the "Buy Caprice Home" brand even though it had been designed not by the Caprice in question (the celebrity Caprice Bourret) but by a freelance designer.
In her judgment of 21 Nov 2019, Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke dismissed the claim on the ground that there had been no copying. She also made some importan…
As I have to present a talk for our seminar on Software Patents after Symbian and Bilski in Liverpool on 5 Feb 2009 I thought I would have a look at the Comptroller's decisions since Symbian Ltd v Comptroller-General EWCA Civ 1066 to see whether there had been any change in the Office's approach to software and business method patents since the CA's decision. The official line from the IPO is that this case has not made much difference. In "Applying the Aerotel/Macrossan Test" the Office revisited four cases that had been decided before Symbian and concluded that they would have been decided in exactly the same way now. And yet I wonder. Only one case has come before an hearing officer since Symbian and that was a win for the applicant. In January Patent Ltd.'s application the invention was a combined electronic point of sale device for buying credits for mobile telephones. The examiner had rejected the application on the grounds that the invention was…