NIPC Law

Author Ryry17354 Licence Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 unoirted Source Wikipeoda Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Kitchin, Lord Justice Floyd and Lady Justice Asplin)  Unwired Planet International Ltd  and Another v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Another [2018] EWCA Civ 2344 (23 Oct 2018) FRAND stands for "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory".   It is an acronym to describe the terms upon which licences should be granted for standard essential patents ( "SEPs" ).   SEPs are patents for inventions that are crucial for compliance with a technical standard.   I attempted an introduction to FRAND terms and SEPs in FRAND   on 8 Oct 2017. Lord Kitchin gave a much better one in the first five paragraphs of his judgment in  Unwired Planet International Ltd and Another v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Another [2018] EWCA Civ 2344 (23 Oct 2018). Unwired Planet In FRAND I discussed Mr Justice Birss's decision in Unwi

Author: S Solberg J Licence Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 unported Source Wikipedia Jane Lambert Ever since the referendum and indeed before it I have tried to anticipate the legal protection for brands , designs , technology  and creativity  if and when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union (see Were we to go - what would Brexit mean for IP?   26 Feb 2016, What Sort of IP Framework do we need after Brexit and what are we likely to get?   3 July 2016  and IP Planning for Brexit 7 Dec 2018).  Much will depend on the terms upon which we leave the EU and our relationship after departure. Since the 23 Aug 2018 the government has published guidance on  How to prepare if the UK leaves the EU with no deal .  That guidance covers everything from Applying for EU Funded Programmes to Workplace Rights.  I commented about it in And if there is no deal ..................   24 Aug 2018 NIPC Brexit,  Topics include patents, copyrights, trade marks and designs, ge

Royal Courts of Justice Author Anthony M Licence Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 generic Source Wikimedia Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Kitchin, Lord Justice Floyd and Sir Colin Rimer) Argos Ltd. v Argos Systems Inc.   [2018] EWCA Civ 2211 (9 Oct 208) "Can a US corporation selling construction software only in the Americas under the name ARGOS be sued for infringement of a registered trade mark by a UK based consumer goods retailer who trades mainly in the UK and Ireland under the same name?" asked Lord Justice Floyd at paragraph [1] of the Court of Appeal's judgment in  Argos Ltd v Argos Systems Inc [2018] EWCA Civ 2211 (09 October 2018).  His lordship added: "That the question even arises for serious consideration is a consequence of the developments in the European law of trade marks and of the revolution in commerce and advertising brought about by the internet." The Parties The "UK based consumer goods retailer&q

Interior of the Royal Courts of Justice Author Aurelien Guichard Licence Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 2.0 Generic Source Wikipedi a Jane Lambert Just over 6 years ago the Patents County Court Small Claims Track was launched (see my article Soon there will be a Remedy if Someone steals your Idea   19 Sept 2012 NIPC Inventors Club). I was very enthusiastic about the new court and wrote a lot about it as you can see from the bibliography in Small IP Claims   31 Jan 2017 NIPC News).  The reason for my enthusiasm was that it seemed to make IP litigation affordable for thousands of start-ups and other small businesses that felt that the law provided no effective protection for their investments in branding, design, technology and creativity  because enforcement  of their rights was too expensive and too uncertain.  Before the Civil Procedure Rules came into force in 1999 claims often began with an application for interim injunctive relief.  Most s

Back of an eye showing age-related macular degeneration Author US National Eye Institute Source Wikipedia Jane Lambert Administrative Court (Mrs Justice Whipple)  Bayer Plc v NHS Darlington CCG and other s    [2018] EWHC 2465 (Admin) 21 Sept 2018 This case was an application by Bayer Plc  and Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd . for judicial review of a decision by 12  clinical commissioning groups   ( "CCGs" )   in Northeast England to offer patients with wet AMD   ( age-r elated macular degeneration) injections of a drug known as Avastin or bevacizumab. The reason for their decision is that Avastin costs £28 per injection compared to £816 for Bayer's EYLEA  and £551 for Novartis's Lucentis .  The CCGs had made their decision to save money.  The only problem was that Avastin had been developed for the treatment of cancer and not  ophthalmology  whereas the other two drugs had been authorized  by the  European Medicines Agency  for treati