Posts

Showing posts from June, 2020

Practice - Injunctions pending Appeal Evalve Inc v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd

Image
Jane Lambert

Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss) Evalve Inc and others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd [2020] EWHC 1524 (Pat) (18 June 2020)

In Evalve Inc and others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd #1 [2020] EWHC 514 (Pat) (12 March 2020)). Mr Justce Birss held that two patents that protected the market for a device known as the MitraClip were valid and infringed.   In Evalve Inc and others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd (#2) [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat) (12 March 2020) Mr Justice Birss rejected the defendant's contention that it should be allowed to market its product notwithstanding the judgment on the ground that some patients were assisted by a product that competed with the MitraClip but not by the MitraClip itself. I blogged about those cases in  Patents - Evalve Inc. and Others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd. #127 March 2020 NIPC Law and Patents - Evalve Inc. and Others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd. #230 March 2020.

The claimants sought a perpetual injunctions and their costs.  The defendants applied for…

Damages Awards in the IPEC Small Claims Track

Image
Jane Lambert

On 16 June 2020 the Intellectual Property Office updated its Guidance on IP crime and enforcement for business.  Most of the Guidance in three attachments:
IP crime and enforcement for businessesThe UK UP Crime Group, and Record of damages awarded in IPEC SCT cases 1 April 2018 - 31 March 2019 "IPEC SCT" stands for "Intellectual Property Enterprise Court Small Claims Track. This is a tribunal for IP claims under £10,000 other than those involving patents, registered and registered Community designs, plant varieties and semiconductor topographies.   I have discussed this jurisdiction in Small IP Claimsand the articles linked to that page.
The IP crime and enforcement for businesses attachment contains two videos.  One is entitled IP Rights Infringement Overview and the other is How do I avoid infringing IP rights at work?   There are summaries of the law on copyright, patent, design and trade mark infringement, advice on what to do if accused of IP infringeme…

An English Language Common Law Court in Kazakhstan

Image
Jane Lambert

Immediately to the west of China, the Republic of Kazakhstan straddles Europe and Asia. It was therefore logical for the President of China to announce the project now known as the Belt Road Initiative ("QBRI") to build new road, rail, power and telecommunications links between China and Europe on a visit to that country in 2013 (see President Xi Jinping delivers speech at Nazarbayev University9 Sept 2013 YouTube).

The construction and maintenance of those transport and communications links across Kazakhstan will require enormous investment from China and other countries.  It is likely that disputes will arise from time to time and a forum will be required for their resolution. The Supreme People's Court of China offers The China International Commercial Court at X'ian and Shenzhen but the proceedings are in Chinese before Chinese judges and are determined in accordance with Chinese law.  Not every foreign investor, contractor or service provider will be…

Practice - Manchester United v Sega

Image
Jane Lambert

Chancery Division (Mr Justice Morgan) Manchester United Football Club Ltd v Sega Publishing Europe Ltd and another  [2020] EWHC 1439 (Ch) (4 June 2020)

This was an application by Manchester United Football Club ("MUFC") for permission to amend its particulars of claim.  The Club has already brought proceedings against Sega Publishing Europe Ltd. ("Sega") and Sports Interactive Ltd. ("SI") alleging infringements of  its EU trade marks EU1333640 and EU761312 under art 9 (2)  (a) and (c) of  Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 154, 16.6.2017, p. 1–99 and passing off.  The amendment that it sought would have added a new cause of action under art 10.
SI had developed a game called "Football Manager" which Sega publishes and markets. MUFC complained as follows:

"i) the Defendants have taken the active step not to display…

Patents - Neurim Pharmaceuticals v Mylan

Image
Jane Lambert

Patents Court (Mr Justice Msrcus Smith) Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd and another v Generics UK Ltd (t/a Mylan) and another [2020] EWHC 1362 (Pat) (3 June 2020)

This was an application by Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd. ("Neurim"), the registered proprietor of European patent (UK) number 1441702 and Flynn Pharma Ltd. ("Flynn") the proprietor's exclusive licensee for an interim injunction to restrain until trial or further order the generics manufacturer, Mylan, from taking steps that might infringe that patent.  The application was heard online by Mr Justice Marcus Smith on 20 May 2020. He handed down his judgment on 3 June 2020.

The Dispute
The claimants manufactured and distributed a product called "Circadin" which is protected by the patent. Mylan has obtained marketing authorization for a generic version of Circadin and cleared one of the obstacles to the launch of its product by obtaining the revocation of the patent in the Euro…

Patents - Teva UK Ltd v Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA

Image
Jane Lambert

Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss)Teva UK Ltd v Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA[2020] EWHC 1311 (Pat) (2 June 2020)

This was an application by the claimant, Teva UK Ltd ("Teva") to strike out or stay a counterclaim by the defendant, Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA ("Chiesi") for an injunction to restrain the infringement of certain patents that Teva had sought to revoke. Teva argued that the counterclaim had no real prospect of success because there was no evidence that Teva threatened or intended to infringe any of the patents in suit.  Alternatively, Teva argued that the counterclaim should be stayed on the ground that the disclosure of a product description for the purpose of the litigation would mount to a concerted practice within the meaning of art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") and/or s,2 of the Competition Act 1998.  The action and counterclaim are listed for trial in October 2020.
The Application The strikeout applic…

Malicious Falsehood - Resistant Building Products Ltd v National House Builders' Council

Image
Jane Lambert

Chancery Division, Northern Ireland (HH Judge McFarland) Resistant Building Products Ltd v National House Builders' Council[2020] NICh 6 (27 April 2020)

This was an application by the plaintiff, Resistant Building Products Ltd. ("RBP"), for an interim injunction to restrain the defendant, National House Builders Council ("NHBC") until trialor further orderfrom using, publishing, communicating or disclosing to any other person any information relating to RBP's magnesium oxide boards ("MgO boards") which suggests or tends to suggest that accreditation has been withdrawn, and any guidance relating to RBP's MgO boards which suggests or tends to suggest that accreditation has been withdrawn.

The Dispute
RBP manufactures and distributes MgO boards. MgO boards are used for covering or sheathing of walls and ceilings. Inside a building, they can perform a role similar to gypsum-based 'plasterboard'.  They can also be used inside cav…