Showing posts from January, 2021

Choice of Jurisdiction: Top Optimized Technologies v Vodafone

Audiencia Nacional, Madrid Author FDV   Licence  CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikipedia   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Marcus Smith)  Top Optimized Technologies SL and another v Vodafone Group Services Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 46 (Pat) (14 Jan 2021) This was an application by Vodafone Group Services Limited, Vodafone Group plc and Vodafone Limited ("Vodafone") to stay, either on jurisdictional grounds or for case management reasons, proceedings that had been brought against them by Top Optimized Technologies SL and TOT Power Control SL ("TOT") for patent infringement and other causes of action.  TOT had also brought proceedings against Vodaphone and Huawei in Madrid which Vodafone had challenged with some success on the ground that several causes of action were subject to agreements conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the English courts.  The proceedings that Vodaphone sought to stay were referred to as "the second UK proceedings" and the proceedings

Practice: Permavent Ltd and another v Makin

The Rolls Building Author Basher Eyre   Licence CC BY-SA  2.0   Source Wikipedia Rolls Bldg   Jane Lambert Patents Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Permavent Ltd and another v Maki n [2020] EWHC 3495 (Pat) (17 Dec 2020) A Tomlin order is a way of settling litigation.  It consists of a settlement agreement that is confidential to the parties annexed to an order staying the proceedings.  If a party fails to abide by the agreement, the order permits the other party to apply to the court to enforce it without bringing a new action,  It is called a Tomlin order because it was first made by Mr Justice Tomlin in Dashwood v Dashwood   [1927] WN 276, 64 LJNC 431, 71 Sol Jo 911 (1 Nov1927).  Mr Justice Tomlin subsequently issued a practice notice for such orders which is now contained in CPR 40.6  and para 3 of the Part 40B Practice Direction, In  Permavent Ltd and another v Makin [2020] EWHC 3495 (Pat) (17 Dec 2020) a dispute between the claimant companies and the former managing director of the first

Practice: Juul Labs, Inc. and Others v MFP Enterprises Ltd.

A Person using a Juul Device Author Sarah Johnson   Licence CC BY 2,0   Source Wikipedia Juul   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mann)  Juul Labs, Inc and others v MFP Enterprises Ltd (t/a 'Smoke Nation' and others) [2020] EWHC 3380 (Pat) (10 Dec 2020) This was an application for summary as well as default judgment against defendants that had not acknowledged service of the claim form or particulars of claim .  Such applications are rare because CPR 24.4 (1) prohibits a claimant from applying for summary judgment until the defendant against whom the application is made has filed an acknowledgement of service or a defence unless the court has given permission or a practice direction provides otherwise. The circumstances in which a court may give permission were considered by Mr Justice Bryan in The European Union and another v The Syrian Arab Republic [2018] EWHC 1712 (Comm) (29 June 2018) and Mr Justice Hensaw in DVB Bank SE v Vega Marine Ltd and others [2020] EWH

Joint Copyright - The Retrial in Martin and Another v Kogan

Meryl Streep who acted the lead role in Florence Foster Jenkins Author Glynn Lowe   Licence CC BY 2.0   Source  Wikipedia Florence Foster Jenkins    Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Justice Meade)  Martin and another v Kogan [2021] EWHC 24 (Ch) (11 Jan 2021) This was the retrial of an action by the screenwriter, Nick Martin, for a declaration that he was the sole author of the screenplay for the film Florence Foster Jenkins   and a counterclaim by Julia Kagan for a declaration against Mr Martin and the companies that had funded and made the film that she was a joint author and thus a joint owner of the copyright in the screenplay and relief for infringement of her copyright and moral rights.  The action and counterclaim had previously come on before Judge Hacon who found for Mr Martin in Martin and Another v Kogan [2017] EWHC 2927 (IPEC) (22 Nov 2017).  Ms Kogan appealed to the Court of Appeal which ordered a new trial before a different judge (see  Martin and

Patents: Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd v Flexicare Medical Ltd

Jane Lambert   Patents Court (Mr Justice Meade)  Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd v Flexicare Medical Ltd and another [2020] EWHC 3282 (Pat) (8 Dec 2020) This was an action for the infringement of European patent (UK)  No 2 025 359 B1  and a counterclaim for revocation. The action and counterclaim came on before Mr Justice Meade who tried them on 3, 4 and 19 Nov 2020. His lordship delivered his judgment on 8 Dec 2020. The learned judge held at paragraph [226] of his judgment that the patent was valid and that it had been infringed. The Patent The patent had been granted for components for breathing circuits.  The abstract is as follows: "A breathing circuit component (4) includes an inlet, an outlet and an enclosing wall (1). The enclosing wall (1) defines a gases passageway between the inlet and the outlet. At least a region (2,3) of the enclosing wall is formed from a breathable material that allows the passage of water vapour without allowing the passage of liquid water or r

Community Designs: Rothy's Inc v Giesswein Walkwaren AG

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court  (Mr David Stone)  Rothy's Inc v Giesswein Walkwaren AG  [2020] EWHC 3391 (IPEC) (16 Dec 2020) This is a case about the design of shoes which is more interesting than many of the other designs that have come before the courts recently.  It is also possibly the last time an English court will have sat as a Community design court.  Mr David Stone, who tried the case as a deputy judge of the High Court, remarked at paragraph [9] of his judgment t hat   "As things currently stand, this Court will be unable to sit as a Community Design Court after 11pm UK time on 31 December 2020, given the current end date to the transition period following the UK's departure from the European Union." The Issues The claimant company,  Rothy's Inc. ("Rothy's"), is the registered proprietor of  registered Community design number 4500932-0002 for shoes  ("the RCD").  It also claimed to be entitled to an unregist