Posts

Showing posts from October, 2020

Appeal - Celgard, LLC v Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co Ltd

Image
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 the resolution of its dispute with Celgard.  The appeal was…

Confidential Information and Conspiracy - The Racing Partnership v Sports Information Services

Image
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 on 9 Oct 2020. 

The Judgment
In  The Racing Partnership Ltd and…

Registered Designs - BVG Group Limited v Magee

Image
Jane Lambert
Appointed Person (Mr Martin Howe QC) BVG  Group Ltd, v MageeO-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 registered design number 4009288 invalid (see BVG Group Ltd. v MageeO/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 technical function…

Trade Marks and Passing off - Pliteq Inc v iKoustic Ltd

Image
Jane LambertIntellectual Property Enterprise Court (Recorder Amanda Michaels) Pliteq Inc and another v iKoustic Ltd and another [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 EU Trade Mark Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 …

Patents - Edwards Lifesciences v Meril

Image
Jane LambertPatents Court (MrJustice Birss) Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and another v Meril GmbH and another [2020] EWHC 2562 (Pat) (29 Sept 2020)This was an action for the infringement of EP (UK) 1 267 753 ("753") and EP (UK) 3 494 929 ("929") and a counterclaim for revocation of both patents on the grounds of obviousness, insufficiency and added matter.  The action and counterclaim came on for trial before Mr Justice Birss between 20 and 24 July and on 28 and 29 July 2020. His lordship handed down judgment on 29 Sept 2020. 
The PartiesThe claimants are members of the Edwards Lifesciences Group.  Edwards Lifesciences Corporation held the patents and Edwards Lifesciences Limited. was its exclusive licensee.  The patents protect a range of prosthetic aortic valves that the claimants manufacture called "Sapien".  Those valves are implanted into a patient's heart by a catheter.  The technique is known as transcatheter aortic valve implantation (&quo…