Showing posts from April, 2021

The Appeal: Warner Music UK Ltd and others v Tuneii Inc

The Internet Messenger Author   Buky Schwartz   Licence CC BY-2,5   Source  Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, Lady Justice Rose and Lord Justice Arnold)  Warner Music UK Ltd and others v TuneIn Inc ,    [2021] EWCA Civ 441 (26 March 2021) This was an appeal by Tunein Inc. against Mr Justice Birss judgment in Warner Music UK Ltd and others v TuneIn Inc [2019] EWHC 2923 (Ch) (1 Nov 2019) which I discussed in  Copyright - Warner Music UK Ltd and Others v TuneIn Inc.   4 Nov 2019.  The claimants, who between them, account for more than half of the market for digital sales of recorded music in the UK and about 43% globally, sued Tunein Ltd for copyright infringement. TuneIn does not collect, transmit or store any third party audio content but it does connect users to third party radio stations' streams and earns money from advertising and subscriptions.  Mr Justice Birss found that TuneIn had infringed the claimants' copyrights by communicating

Toy Wars - Cabo Concepts v MGA Entertainment

Standard YouTube Licence Jane Lambert   Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor)  Cabo Concepts Ltd v MGA Entertainment (UK) Ltd and another     [2021] EWHC 491 (Pat) (4 March 2021) Yesterday I mentioned the cake war between Marks & Spencer and Aldi (see Jane Lambert Cake War s 17 April 2021 NIPC News).  Today I discuss the litigation between the suppliers of the Worldeez and LOL Surprise! toys,  If you have never heard of either, this video  LOLSurprise Lil Sister vs. Worldeez NEW! Who will win!?!   by Adulting With Children should enlighten you.  At the very least you should appreciate the children's pleasure as they unwrap their packages. The Dispute MGA's LOL Surprise! dolls appear to be well established in the UK market.  They are described at para [6] of Mr Justice Mellor's judgment in  Cabo Concepts Ltd v MGA Entertainment (UK) Ltd and another  [2021] EWHC 491 (Pat) (4 March 2021).  Cabo Concepts says that it had planned to launch its Worldeez products in the UK but wa

The Vestel Appeal: Vestel Elektronik v Access Advance

Author Wags05  Licence Copyright waived by the Author   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Nugee and Birss and Lady Justice Laing)  Vestel Elektronik Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. and another v Access Advance LLC and another [2021] (26 March 2021) [2021] WLR(D) 178, [2021] EWCA Civ 440 Many of the tellies that are sold in this country under such brands as Toshiba, Hitachi, Telefunken and Panasonic are actually made in Turkey by  Vestel Elektronik Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S . and distributed by the Vestel group's British company Vestel UK Ltd.  In this article, "Vestel" refers to both Vestel companies.  Access Advance LLC  administers the HEVC patent pool.  HEVC is a video compression technology which is defined by the International Telecommunication Union H.265 recommendation. One of the members of that pool is Koninklijke Philips NV.  Vestel's Claim Vestel applied to Access Advance for a licence to use Philips's patents under Access Advance's Patent Portfolio

Patents - Kwikbolt Ltd v Airbus Operations Ltd

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Kwikbolt Ltd v Airbus Operations Ltd [2021] EWHC 732 (IPEC) (25 March 2021) This was an action for an injunction, damages and other relief against aerospace manufacturer Airbus Operations Ltd, for patent infringement. There was also a counterclaim by Airbus for revocation of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness and insufficiency. The action and counterclaim came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon between 9 and 12 Feb 2021. In  Kwikbolt Ltd v Airbus Operations Ltd [2021] EWHC 732 (IPEC) (25 March 2021) His Honour held that the patent was valid but that it had not been infringed.  The Patent The patent in suit is GB2455635B .  It was granted for a removable blind fastener.  The title might suggest that the invention has something to do with window blinds in an aircraft  cabin, In fact  "'Blind' is a term of art in the context of fasteners, meaning that the fastener can be fitte

Scottish Law and Innovation Network

Author dun_deagh   Licence CC BY-SA 2.0   Source Wikipedia Scotland Jane Lambert Shortly before the Scottish independence referendum, I wrote  What would an independent Scottish government do about Intellectual Property?   on 10 Sept 2014 and  More on Scotland and Intellectual Property   on 13 Sept 2014.  As Scotland approaches elections in which the question of secession from the United Kingdom will again be an issue, it is now appropriate to reconsider what should be the intellectual property policy of a separate Scotland. In 2014 the section on intellectual property in the Scottish government's white paper Scotland's Future  consisting of 4 short paragraphs of which only the first was of any relevance.  I was not particularly impressed with it and I said so at the time.  Having said that, credit should be given to the Scottish government for at least publishing a white paper on independence because there was nothing like that on the UK's withdrawal from the EU in June 2