NIPC Law

Author Dori   Public Domain Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co, Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1048 (Pat) (26 April 2021) This was a trial to determine whether European patent (UK) 1925142B1  is essential to version 10.0.0 and all subsequent versions of TS36.322 of the 4th generation 3GPP Long-Term Evolution (“LTE’) standard.  The registered proprietor of the patent is SISVEL International S.A which is the second claimant in these proceedings.   The proceedings are part of a wider dispute as to whether the defendants should take a licence from the first claimant's patent pool ("MCP pool") on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms.  As is often the case in FRAND disputes the defendant implementors denied the patent's validity, its essentiality to the standard and that it had been infringed.  They also disputed the fairness, reasonableness a

  Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Iain Purvis QC) Semtech Corporation and others v Lacuna Space Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1143 (Pat) (5 May 2021) This was a challenge to the court's jurisdiction by two former employees of the third claimant under art 22.1 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1–32 ("the Brussels Recast Regulation) .  That article provides that an employer may bring proceedings against its employee only in the courts of the Member State in which the employee is domiciled.  The application came on before Mr Iain Purvis QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 30 April 2021.  At para [75] of his judgment in  S emtech Corporation and others v Lacuna Space Ltd and other s [2021] EWHC 1143 (Pat) (5 May 2021), the learned deputy judge found that he had no jurisdiction over the

Author  Basher Eyre #   Lixnxw  CC BY-SA 2. 0 Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor)  Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Xiaomi Inc and others [2021] EWHC 1124 (Pat) (26 April 2021) On 21 Oct 2020 Koninklijke Philips N.V issued patent infringement proceedings against Xiaomi Inc and its subsidiaries in the UK, Cayman Islands and Hong Kong. Phillips claimed that the patents that the Xiaomi companies are alleged to have infringed are essential to a standard for the operation of 3G and 4G mobile phone networks for which it has undertaken to grant licences.  Phillips sought a declaration that the terms upon which it grants licences are FRAND, that is to say fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory As all the defendants except the second are outside the jurisdiction, Phillips needed the court's permission to serve them. It applied to Mr Justice Mann on 26 Oct 2020 who granted such leave to Phillips as well as other relief.  The second defendant, Xiaomi Technology (United Kingdom) Ltd., is

2D Structure of T ravoprost Author Vaccinationist     Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Meade)   Alcon Research LLC and other v Actavis Group PTC EHF and others [2021] EWHC 1026 (Pat) (23 April 2021) This was an action for relief for the infringement of European patent (UK) 1 920 764  which had expired in 2014 and a counterclaim for its revocation on grounds of anticipation , obviousness  and insufficiency .  The defendants admitted that their products would have infringed the patent had it been valid so these were effectively revocation proceedings.  A supplementary protection certificate  numbered  SPC/GB12/038  had been granted for  Travoprost  upon the expiry of the patent but the only issue that related to the SPC depended on the validity of the patent. The action and counterclaim came on for trial before Mr Justice Meade between 16 and 22 March 2021 and his lordship delivered judgment on 23 April 2021 (see Alcon Research LLC and other v Actavis G

The Rolls Building Author Basher Eyre   Licence CC BY-SA 2.0   Source  Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Mitsubishi Electric Company and another v Archos SA and others   [2021] EWHC 889 (Pat) (13 April 2021) A FRAND case is essentially a patent infringement claim where the remedy to which a successful claimant would normally be entitled has been modified by agreement.  Mr Justice Birss summarized the principle succinctly at para [83] of his judgment in   Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and anothe r [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat) (5 April 2017): "The point of FRAND in standard setting is fairly easy to understand. Standards exist so that different manufacturers can produce equipment which is interoperable with the result that the manufacturers compete with one another. So the phone makers compete in the market for phones and the public can select a phone from any supplier and be sure (for example) that if it is a 4G phone, it

Jane Lambert Patents Court (Lord Justice Birss) Facebook Ireland Ltd v Voxer IP LLC [2021] EWHC 657 (Pat) (19 March 2021) In    Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and others     [2017] Bus LR 1731, [2017] UKSC 48, [2017] RPC 21, the Supreme Court changed the way the courts decide whether a patent claim has been infringed. I discussed that judgment in detail in    The Supreme Court's Judgment in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and Others: how to understand it and why it is important   13 July 2017. Up to that judgment a patent could be infringed only if a variant fell within the language of a claim. Lord Neuberger referred to that as a "normal construction". After that judgment a patent could be infringed if the variant operated in a manner that was equivalent to the claim.  This was referred to in that case and subsequently as the "doctrine of equivalents". The issue before Lord Justice Birss in  Facebook Ireland Ltd v Voxer IP LLC [2021] EWHC 657 was whether the doctrine

Ebenezer Scrooge and Marley's Ghost Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Matcus Smith) Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd and Another v Generics UK Ltd (t/a Mylan) and anothe r  [2021] EWHC 530 (Pat) (12 March 2021) This was an action by Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd   ("Neurim")   the proprietor of European patent (UK) 1 441 702 B1   and Flynn Pharma Ltd ("Flynn"), its purported exclusive licensee, to restrain the infringement of that patent by Generics UK Ltd. and Mylan UK Healthcare Ltd. There was also a counterclaim by the defendants (referred to jointly as "Mylan") for the revocation of the patent on grounds of anticipation, obviousness and insufficiency.  This action and counterclaim came on for trial before Mr Justice Marcus Smith between 29 Oct and 5 Nov 2020.  At first, Neurim was victorious.   By para [148] of his judgment in  Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd and another v Generics UK Ltd and another [2020] EWHC 3270 which he delivere

Jane Lambert There has been a passionate debate about the rôle of intellectual property ("IP") in producing and distributing vaccines against COVID 19 in low and mid-income countries. In a  communication to the Council of TRIPS dated 2 Oct 2020  (IP/C/W/669), the Indian and South African governments proposed relaxing some of the treaty obligations that require countries to protect the intellectual assets of their own and other countries' nationals. As a citizen, I have my views on that issue but in this article, I write only as a lawyer who has spent the better part of a lifetime advising and representing businesses and individuals on IP.   The Patent Waiver Proposal The proposal had gathered support from the governments of other low and mid-income countries, the former President of the Republic of Ireland and  Chair of the Elders ,  Mary Robinson  and  Baroness Chakrabarti.  the former shadow Attorney-General. and from the non-governmental organization  Médecins Sans Fro