NIPC Law

Electron Microscope Image of Human Blood Photographers: Bruce Wetzel and Harry Schaefer Jane Lambert Patents Court  (Mr Justice Meade)  Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd v Wyeth LLC [2020] EWHC 2636 (Pat) (15 Oct 2020) This was an action by Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd ("MSD") for the revocation of European Patent (UK) 2,676,679  for formulations which stabilize and inhibit precipitation of immunogenic compositions which had been granted to Wyeth LLC ("Wyeth") on grounds of want of novelty, obviousness and insufficiency.  Wyeth counterclaimed for infringement and also applied for the amendment of certain claims. The trial took place between 30 June and 10 July 2020 before Richard Meade QC as he then was.  In a press release dated 4 Sept 2020, the Judicial Appointments Commission announced   that Mr Meade had been elevated to the High Court bench with effect from 7 Sept 2020. His lordship handed down his judgment in this action on 15 Oct 2020 (see  Merck Sharp & Do

Jane Lambert   Patents Court (Sir Alistair Norris)  Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and another v Archos SA and other s [2020] EWHC 2641 (Pat) (9 Oct 2020) In these proceedings, Sir Alistair Norris was asked to vary a confidentiality order that had been made by Mr Justice Mann at a case management conference on 22 July 2020.  The order was made in an action to set the terms of a licence to work certain patents that were alleged to be essential for compliance with a mobile telecommunications standard. That was one of a number of issues between the Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and    Sisvel International SA on the one hand and several implementers of the standard on the other.   The other issues were the jurisdiction of the English courts, whether the patents had been infringed and whether the terms of the licence that the claimants were prepared to offer were fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND"). The reason why Mr Justice Mann made a confidentiality order was t

BBC TV Centre Author Panhard Licence CC BY-SA 3.0 Source Wikipedia BBC     Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Master Teverson)    Shazam Productions Ltd v Only Fools the Dining Experience Ltd and others [2020] EWHC 2799 (Ch) (19 Oct 2020) This was an application by the defendants to an action for copyright infringement and passing off for the transfer of the claim to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC").   The claimant, Shazam Productions Ltd. ("Shazam") was a company established by the late John Sullivan  who created the TV sit come Only Fools and Horses   to manage his intellectual property rights. The defendants offered an  "interactive theatrical dining experience called Only Fools The (cushty) Dining Experience ("the Show")." According to Master Teverson who heard the application, "the Show is a part-scripted, part- improvised dramatic performance which takes place while the audience eats a three-course dinner and inv

Author  dozenist   Licence CC BY-SA 2,5   Source Wikimedia Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr James Mellor QC)  C.T. Dent Ltd v Atias and another [2020] EWHC 2720 (Ch) (14 Oct  2020)   This was an application for interim injunctive relief in an action for breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful interference with property, infringement of copyright, infringement of the sui generis database right and misuse of confidential information. The claimant was CT Dent Ltd  ("Dent"), a dental scanning company. The defendants were Kfir Yizhaq Atias ("Mr Atias") a former director of Dent and Dental Scan Ltd ("Scan"), a company that Mr Atias founded on 9 Sept 2020. The application came on before Mr James Mellor QC sitting as a judge of the High Court on 2 Oct 2020, He granted injunctions on 5 Oct 2020 and gave his reasons in  C.T. Dent Ltd v Atias and another [2020] EWHC 2720 (Ch)  on14 Oct 2020. The Facts Until 2 Sept 2020, Mr Atias was one of three directors of Dent. Th

Anthony M. Rome,  - Flickr, CC BY 2.0,  Source   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Davis, Arnold and Popplewell)  Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co Ltd v Celgard, LLC (Rev 1) [2020] EWCA Civ 1293 (9 Oct 2020) This was an appeal from Mr Justice Trower's decision in    Celgard, LLC v Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co Ltd [2020] EWHC 2072 (Ch) (30 July 2020) which I discussed in  Trade Secrets - Celgard, LLC v Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co Ltd . on 31 July 2020. The action was for breach of confidence and infringement of Directive (EU) 2016/943 ("the Trade Secrets Directive") .  The claimant, Celgard LLC, had obtained from Mr Justice Trower an interim injunction and permission to serve process on Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co Ltd. ("Shenzhen") outside the jurisdiction. Shenzhen appealed on the ground that the judge had been wrong to hold that there was a serious issue to be tried and that England was the appropriate form for

Hippodrome de Deauville - Clairefontaine / Attribution   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Lewison, Arnold and Phillips)    The Racing Partnership Ltd and others v Sports Information Services Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 1300 (9 Oct 2020) This was an appeal from Mr Justice Zacaroli's judgment in  The Racing Partnership Ltd and others v Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Ltd and others [2019] EWHC 1156 (Ch), [2019] 3 WLR 779, [2019] WLR(D) 492, [2020] Ch 289. The claimants ("TRP") had sued Sports Information Services Ltd ("SIS") and others for copyright and database right infringement, breach of confidence, breach of contract and conspiracy.  Mr Justice Zacaroli dismissed all the claims against SIS except the action for breach of confidence.  SIS appealed to the Court of Appeal against the finding of breach of confidence.  TRP cross-appealed against the dismissal of its claim for conspiracy,  The appeal was heard between 7 to 9 July 2020 and judgment was handed down

  Jane Lambert Appointed Person (Mr Martin Howe QC) BVG  Group Ltd, v Magee    O-222-20 6 Oct 2020 This was an appeal to the Appointed Person by Mr Peter Magee against the decision of Mr Mark King to declare invalid r egistered design number 4009288  invalid (see BVG Group Ltd. v Magee   O/713/19 22 Nov 2019). The hearing officer held that the design did not satisfy section 1C (1) of the Registered Designs Act 1949 in that its features were dictated solely by the product’s technical function.  Mr Magee appealed against that decision on two grounds: “1.1. The Hearing Officer failed to consider various features of the appearance of the design. He failed to consider whether those features of the appearance of the design had a technical function, and failed to consider whether those features had an appearance that was solely dictated by their technical function.  1.2. Further, having conducted an analysis that led him to conclude that the features of the design that were examined had a tec

Photo Michael Maggs   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Jane Lambert I ntellectual Property Enterprise Court (Recorder Amanda Michaels)  Pliteq Inc and another v iKoustic Ltd and anothe r [2020] EWHC 2564 (IPEC) (2 Ocr 2020) This was a dispute between Pliteq Inc , a manufacturer of acoustic damping and sound control products and its UK subsidiary and iKoustic Ltd  ("iKoustiic"), their former distributor When the two sides fell out iKoustic held a large quantity of Pliteq stock which the claimants refused to take back. iKoustic used Pliteq's marks to sell off that stock while at the same time selling their own range of competing products,  Pliteq complained that the use of their marks in relation to iKoustic products amounted to trade mark infringement and passing off,  The defendants denied that their use of the claimants' marks amounted to infringement but if it did they could rely on the exhaustion defence set out in s.12 (1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and art 15 (1) of the E