NIPC Law

  Author  Goodtiming8871   Licence CC BY=SA 4 ,- Source Wikipedia Wireless     J ane Lambert Court of Appeal ( Lord Justice Lewison, Lady Justice Asplin and Lord Justice Arnold) IPCom GmbH & Co Kg v Vodafone Group Plc and others  [2021] EWCA Civ 205 (19 Feb 2021) This was an appeal by both sides against the judgment of Mr Recorder Campbell QC in IPcom GmbH & Co Kg v Vodafone Group Plc and others [2020] EWHC 132 (Pat) (28 Jan 2020).  That had been a claim by  IPCpm GmbH & Co Kg  against several companies in the Vodafone group for infringement of European Patent (UK) number EP2579666B1for Allocation of access rights for a telecommunications channel to subscriber stations of a telecommunications network . Mr Justice Birss had ordered the trial to dispose of some of the issues in a wider dispute over whether the Vodafone companies were obliged to take a licence from IPCom on FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms  in order to comply with an ETSI technical stan

  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Nicholas Caddick QC)  Coloplast A/S v Salts Healthcare [2021] EWHC 107 (Pat) (26 Jan 2021) I discussed Nicholas Caddick QC's decision in  Coloplast A/S v Salts Healthcare Limited [2021] EWHC 3 (Pat) (18 Jan 2021) in   Patents - Coloplast A/S v Salts Healthcare Limited.   on 16 Feb 2021. It will be recalled that the claimant won everything except on obviousness.  As that was enough to defeat the action the learned deputy judge found for the defendant. On 21 Jan 2021, he had to deal with the form of order.   The following issues were in dispute: "a. Whether to make an issue-based costs order; b. The level of interim payment to award on account of costs; c. Whether to award an interim payment in respect of interest on costs; and d. Whether to grant Coloplast permission to appeal." Whether to make an Issue-Based Order Mr Caddick said at para [3] of his order: "It is common ground that Salts was the overall winner of the proceedings. Accord

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr David Stone)  Cormeton Fire Protection Ltd v Cormeton Electronics Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 11 (IPEC) (18 Jan 2021) This was a dispute between parties that had once been closely associated but had subsequently fallen out over rights to use branding that they had previously shared.  The claimant, Cormeton Fire Protection Limited, had collaborated with the second defendant, John Aitchison, to set up the first defendant, Cormeton Electronics Limited, to develop an electronic fire alarm business at the claimant's premises in 1989. The shares in the new company were held by Michael Warburton, a director and secretary of the claimant company, and Mr Aitcheson. Mr Warburton held 60% and Mr Aitcheson 40%. In 2003 Mr Warburton sold his shares and the company found new premises. Cormeton Fire Protection and Cormeton Electronics did different kinds of work but they continued to refer enquiries to each other until 2015.   In 2014 Mr

Author BruceBlaus   Licence CC BY 3.0   Source Wikipedia Colostomy Jane Lambert Patents Court (Nicholas Caddick QC)  Coloplast A/S v Salts Healthcare Limited [2021] EWHC 3 (Pat) (18 Jan 2021) This was an action for patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation.  The patent in suit was  EP (UK) 2 854 723  for a comfort layer for a collecting bag and the claimant, Coloplast A/S, was the patentee. Coloplast complained that Salts Healthcare Limited ( "Salts" ) had infringed the patent by marketing a product that fell within several of the claims of the patent. Salts contended that the patent was invalid for want of novelty and inventive step, insufficiency, absence of technical contribution and added matter. The action and counterclaim came on before Mr Nicholas Caddick QC  sitting as a judge of the High Court. He tried the action and counterclaim between 28 and 30 Sept and on 1, 6 and 7 Oct 2020.  In  Coloplast A/S v Salts Healthcare Limited [2021] EWHC 3 which he hand