NIPC Law

Standard YouTube Licence Jane Lambert The World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") , European Patent Office ("EPO")  and the Intellectual Property Office ("IPO")  have all published statistics on patenting activity in 2019.  According to the IPO's Facts and figures: Patent, trade mark, design and hearing data: 2019 , the IPO received 19,250 patent applications in 2019 which was down from 20,931 the previous year.  Just over 12,000 of those applications came from the UK compared to 12,843 the previous year.  However, there was a welcome 6.9% increase in the number of applications for European patents (6,156 in 2029 compared to 5,761 in 2018 (see European patent applications ).  There was also modest growth in the number of international patent applications from the UK (5,786 in 2019 compared to 5,634 the year before (see  Annex 1: International patent applications by origin (PCT System) )). The modest increase in the number of internatio

Radomil / CC BY-SA (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Marcus Smith) Rockwool International A/S v Knauf Insulation Ltd [2020] EWHC 1068 (Pat) (7 May 2020 This was an appeal from the refusal of the hearing officer, Mr Huw Jones,  to revoke British patents  GB2451719  ("719") and  GB2496951 ("951") (see Rockwool International A/S and Knauf Insulation Limited   BL 0/291/19 28 May 2019). The Patents The patents concern materials for holding mineral wool in place to form thermal insulation for buildings known as "binders".  Those patents had been granted to Knauf Insulation Ltd. ("Knauf"). The abstract of 719 was as follows: "A substantially formaldehyde-free binder solutions having a pH greater than 6, comprising a carbohydrate, an acid precursor derivable from an inorganic salt and a nitrogen source. Typically, the carbohydrate is a reducing sugar, especially dext

Basher Eyre /  Junction of Fetter Lane and Rolls Buildings  /  CC BY-SA 2.0 Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Warby)  Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 1058 (Ch) (1 May 2020) This was an application by the publisher of the Mail on Sunday  and the Mail Online  to strike out certain allegations contained in the particulars of claim and further information of the Duchess of Sussex  and later the reply  in an action that she has brought against the publisher for copyright infringement, misuse of private information and infringement of her rights under the General Data Protection Regulation .  The complaint arises from the newspaper's publication of a letter from the duchess to her father on 10 Feb 2019. Nature of the Application It is important to understand from the outset that this was a procedural application and that no decision has been made on the merits of the Duchess of Sussex's claim against the publisher.

Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Lord Justice Arnold)  Sky Plc and others v Skykick UK Ltd and another [2020] EWHC 990 (Ch) (29 April 2020) On 23 May 2016 Sky PLC and its subsidiaries Sky AG and Sky UK Ltd. ("Sky") issued proceedings against Skykick UK Ltd and Skykick Inc.("Skykick") for infringement of their EU and UK trade marks and passing off.  Skykick denied infringement and passing off and counterclaimed for declarations that the trade marks were wholly or partially invalid on the grounds that the specified goods and services were unclear and imprecise and the applications for those trade marks had been made in bad faith. The Proceedings The action and counterclaim came on for trial before Mr Justice Arnold as he then was.  In   Sky Plc and others v Skykick UK Ltd and another   [2018] EWHC 155 (Ch), [2018] ETMR 23, [2018] RPC 5 the learned judge dismissed the claim for passing off but took the view that the trade marks would be infrin

Vadadustat t Structure Wikimedia Commons Source Wikipedia Licensed by Meodipt  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Lord Justice Arnold)  Akebia Therapeutics Inc v Fibrogen, Inc [2020] EWHC 866 (Pat) (20 April 2020) This was a claim by Akebia Therapeutics Inc.(“Akebia”) and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (“Otsuka”) to revoke 6 patents held by FibroGen Inc. ("FibroGen"). The reason why they sought the revocation of those patents is that they wished to market their own product vadadustat . FibroGen's exclusive licensee, Astellas Pharma Inc (“Astellas”) brought quia timet  infringement proceedings against Akebia, Otsuka and FibroGen.  The proceedings came on before Lord Justice Arnold between 2 and 19 March 2020. His lordship delivered judgment on 20 April 2020. The Patents The patents in suit were as follows: Family A Family B WO 03/053997 (“WO 997”)    WO 2004/108121 (“WO 121” ) EP (UK) No 1,463,823 (“EP 823”) EP (UK) No 1,633,333 (“EP