NIPC Law

Jane Lambert Supreme Court (Lady Hale, Lords Kerr, Sumption, Hodge and Briggs) Actavis Group PTC EHF and others v ICOS Corporation and another [2019] UKSC 15 (27 March 2019) In The Cialis Litigation - Actavis Group PTC EHF and Others v Icos Corp and Another  4 Oct 2016, I discussed Mr Justice Birss's judgment in  Actavis and others v Eli Lilly and Co [2016] EWHC 1955 (Pat) (10 Aug 2016) in which he dismissed a claim for the revocation of European patent (UK) No 1,173,181  "Compositions comprising phosphodiesterase inhibitors for the treatment of sexual dysfunction"  and held that the patent had been infringed,  His judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Lewison, Kitchin and Floyd) in   Actavis Group PTC EHF and another v Teva UK Ltd and others   [2017] EWCA Civ 1671, 159 BMLR 108, (2018) 159 BMLR 108, [2018] RPC 7 (1 Nov 2017) on the ground that the claims relied upon had been obvious.  The patentee and its exclusive licensee in the UK

Author   Scott Foresman Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Arnold) Freshasia Foods Ltd v Jing Lu    [2019] EWHC 638 (Ch) 20 March 2019 This was a claim by an employer against its former employee for breach of restrictive covenants in his contract of employment, breach of confidence and infringement of copyright and database right.  I have already mentioned the facts of this dispute in Restrictive Covenants - Freshasia Foods Ltd v Jing Lu   11 Jan 2019.  On that occasion, Mr Daniel Alexander QC had to consider the claimant's application for an interim injunction to restrain those alleged breaches and infringements until judgment in the action or further order.  On 7, 8 and 11 March 2019, this action came on before Mr Justice Arnold for trial. The Facts As  I set out the basic facts and the covenants relied upon in my previous case note, there is no need for me to repeat them  Only two witnesses gave evidence at trial, namely one Calvin Lau on beha

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)    Marflow Engineering Ltd v Cassellie Ltd [2019] EWHC 410 (IPEC) (26 Feb 2019) This was another decision by his Honour Judge Hacon on the construction of claims in accordance with art 2 of the Protocol on the Interpretation of art 69 of the European Patent Convention . It follows his  judgments in  Regen Lab SA v Estar Medical Ltd and others   [2019] EWHC 63 (Pat) and  Technetix BV and others v Teleste Ltd .    [2019] EWHC 126 (IPEC) which I discussed in Patents - Regen Lab SA v Estar Medical Ltd . 24 Jan 2019 and  Patents - Technetix BV and others v Teleste Ltd   19 Feb 2019. The Invention The patent in suit  was for a method of installing a fluid-using appliance such as a shower. The invention addressed problems arising when an appliance is connected to pipework extending from the wall against which the appliance is installed. The judge observed that the invention can be used with any fluid-