Posts

Showing posts from February, 2019

Patents - Technetix BV and others v Teleste Ltd

Image
Jane Lambert

Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon) Technetix BV and others v Teleste Ltd [2019] EWHC 126 (IPEC) (29 Jan 2019)

This is another case in which HH Judge Hacon applied the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Actavis UK Ltd and others v Eli Lilly and Company017] Bus LR 1731, [2017] RPC 21, [2017] UKSC 48, the Court of Appeal's in Icescape Limited v Ice-World International BV [2018] EWCA Civ 2219, and his own in Regen Lab SA v Estar Medical Ltd [2019] EWHC 63 (Pat).  I have discussed those cases in The Supreme Court's Judgment in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and Others: how to understand it and why it is important13 July 2017, Patents Icescape Ltd v Ice-World International BV11 Feb 2019 and Patents - Regen Lab SA v Estar Medical Ltd. 24 Jan 2019He also discussed the possible existence of a Formstein defence in English law.

Summary
This was a claim by Technetix BV and its licensees ("Technetix") against Teleste Ltd. ("Teleste") for a…

Patents Icescape Ltd v Ice-World International BV

Image
Jane Lambert

Court of Appeal (Lord Kitchin, Lord Justices Floyd and Longmore)  Icescape Ltd v Ice-World International BV and Another: [2018] EWCA Civ 2219

The importance of this case is that it interprets, applies and possibly extends the Supreme Court's judgment in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and Others [2017] Bus LR 1731, [2017] RPC 21, [2017] UKSC 48 which I discussed in The Supreme Court's Judgment in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and Others: how to understand it and why it is important13 July 2017.

Summary 
This case started as a threats action.  The defence was that the threats were justified because the patent in suit had been infringed. That prompted a claim for a declaration of non-infringement and revocation of that patent to which there was a counterclaim for infringement.  Those actions and the counterclaim came on for trial before Mr John Baldwin QC who sat as a deputy judge of the High Court inIcescape Ltd v Ice-World International BV and another[2017] EWHC 42 (Pat) 23…

A New British Geographical Indications Regime after Brexit

Image
Jane Lambert

In Geographical IndicationsI quoted the WIPO definition of a geographical indication ("GI") as  "a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin".   I also stated that the UK has an international obligation to protect such signs under art 22 (2) of the TRIPS Agreement which is annexed to the WTO Agreement as Annex 1C. In Geographical Indications after Brexit6 Oct 2018 NIPC Branding I noted that this country had discharged that obligation through EU legislation and that the UK will need to establish its own GI regime in order to comply with art 22 (2) TRIPS whether it leaves the EU with or without a withdrawal agreement.  On 5 Fev 2019 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ("DEFRA") published Protecting food and drink names if there's no Brexit dealstating what food and drink producers with GI protection need to know if the UK leaves the EU …