Showing posts from February, 2020

Trade Marks: Asia Standard Management Services Ltd v Standard International Management LLC

Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Marcus Smith)  Asia Standard Management Services Ltd v Standard International Management LLC [2020] EWHC 28 (Ch) (25 Feb 2020) This was an appeal from the decision of Mr George Salthouse dated 6 March 2019 in Re ASIA STANDARD, Asia Standard Management Services Ltd v Standard International Management LLC  BL O/125/19, 6 March 2019 allowing an opposition against the application by Asia Standard Management Services Limited ("Asia") for the registration of the above marks  for all the goods and services applied for except letterheads, forms, printed, notebooks and business cards in class 16 and the organization of sports competitions in class 41 Asia appealed on the following grounds: "(1) Appeal Ground 1 The Hearing Officer erred in principle by failing to consider whether there was a likelihood of confusion in respect of each sufficiently homogeneous category or group of goods or services in issue. (2) Appeal Ground

Patents - Eli Lilly v Genentech, the Preliminary Issue in relation to EP2784084

Eli Lilly & Co.'s factory in Indianapolis in 1862 Author Eli Lilly & Co. Source Wikipedia Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Roger Wyand QC) Eli Lilly and Co. v Genentech, In c [2020] EWHC 261 (Pat) (14 Feb 2020) This was the trial of a preliminary issue and application for summary judgment in Eli Lilly and Co.'s claim for revocation of Genentech Inc.'s European patent  (UK) EP2784084  for Antagonist antibodies to il-17a/f heterologous polypeptides.  Genentech alleged that the patent was valid and that Eli Lilly had infringed it and counterclaimed for the usual remedies for patent infringement.  The action and counterclaim came on before Mr Roger Wyand QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 28 and 29 Jan 2020 and he delivered judgment in  Eli Lilly and Co. v Genentech, In c [2020] EWHC 261 on St. Valentine's day. The preliminary issue was whether certain matters were res judicata by reason of Mr Justice Arnold's decision in Eli Lilly an

Patents - Conversant Wireless Licensing v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and Others

Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss)  Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and others [2020] EWHC 256 (Pat) (10 Feb 2020 This was an application by the claimant, Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL  for disclosure of the licence agreements and assignments relating to 3G and 4G patents that had been entered by the defendants, Huawei Technologies Co Ltd., ZTE (UK) Limited and their British subsidiaries. Substantially the same application had been made to His Honour Judge Hacon at the case management conference in the action which took place in July 2019. The later application was heard by Mr Justice Birss who delivered judgment in  Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and others [2020] EWHC 256 (Pat) on 10 Feb 2020. The reference to the CMC in the transcript of Mr Justice Birss's judgment is [2009] EWHC 1982 (Pat) but I think that must be a misprint for [2019]. Judge Hacon refused Conversant's ap

Copyright - Ukoumunne v The University of Birmingham

Author Brianboru100   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikipedia University of Birmingham   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Miss Recorder Amanda Michaels) Ukoumunne v The University of Birmingham and other s [2020] EWHC 184 (IPEC) (5 Feb 2020) On 5 Dec 2019 Miss Recorder Michaels heard applications by the claimant for the transfer of her claim for copyright infringement, breach of confidence and other complaints to be transferred to the Queen's Bench Division and for an order for disclosure. The recorder also heard applications by the defendants to strike out the action under CPR 3.4 (2) (a) and summary judgment under CPR 24.2. The claimant is a graduate student of the University of Birmingham who has taught at Manchester Metropolitan University and the University of Greenwich. The first defendant is the University of Birmingham, the second, third, fourth and fifth defendants are academics at that University. The claimant alleged that

Artificial Intelligence -The DABUS Decisions

Author   Alisneaky   Licence  CC BY-SA 4.0    Source  Wikipedia Artificial Neural Network Jane Lambert According to The Artificial Inventor Project website's FAQ page, "DABUS" stands for "Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience".  The "About the Team"  page of the same website states that DABUS was created by Dr Stephen L Thaler .  Dr Thaler has applied for European patents for two inventions that were invented by DABUS, namely a food container (application number 18275163)  on 17 Oct 2018 and devices and enhanced devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention (application number 18275174)  on 7 Nov 2018. In  Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property   27 Dec 2019 I mentioned a press release dated 20 Dec 2019 stating that the EPO had refused those patent applications (see  EPO refuses DABUS patent applications designating a machine inventor   20 Dec 2019). The press release added: 'After hearing

Trade Marks - Red Bull GmbH v Big Horn UK Ltd and Others

Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Kelyn Bacon QC) Red Bull GmbH v Big Horn UK Ltd and other s [2020] EWHC 124 (Ch) (30 Jan 2020) This was a claim by Red Bull GmbH  against Big Horn UK Ltd. and its sole director    Lyubomir Enchev. for infringement of the following European trade marks: EU003629342 , EU000052746  and  EU001564301   Red Bull complained that the defendants had distributed a drink in Bulgaria and the UK that has been manufactured by a Polish company under the signs that appear in the right-hand column of the table in paragraph 6 of the transcript.  The action came on for trial before Kelyn Bacon QC between 15 and 17 Jan 2020. The learned deputy judge gave judgment to the claimant on 30 Jan 2020. Red Bill alleged that Big Horn and Mr Enchev had infringed its rights under art 9 (2) (b) and (c) of  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 78, 24.3.2009, p. 1–42  In