Showing posts from July, 2021

The Battle of Revolax - Fox Group International Ltd v Teleta Pharma Ltd.

Author  August Malmström Copyright Expired Source    Wikimedia Commons     Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Melissa Clarke) Fox Group International Ltd v Teleta Pharma Ltd [2021] EWHC 1714 (IPEC) (23 June  2021)   There really was a battle of Revolax between Russia and Sweden in 1808 but that has nothing to do with this article. Revolax is also the name of a hyaluronic acid dermal filler  manufactured by the Korean company  Across Co., Ltd  ( "Across" ) which Fox Group International Ltd. ( "Fox" ) enjoyed the exclusive right to distribute in the UK. Notwithstanding a clause in Fox's distribution agreement recognizing that "trademarks, trade names, designs, copyright and other property rights included in the product possess are the unique property of [Across]" and making clear that Fox did not have or acquire any rights, title or interest in that property, Fox applied to register REVOLAX as a UK trade mark in classes 3, 5,

Interim Injunctions - AutoStore Technology AS v Ocado Group Plc

Ocado Van Author Tomjhpage   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source    Wikimedia   J ane Lambert Patents Court (HH Judge Hacon) AutoStore Technology AS v Ocado Group Plc and other s [2021] EWHC 1614 (Pat) (11 June 2021) This was an application by Ocado Plc, several of its subsidiaries and a supplier of equipment to the Ocado companies ("Ocado") for an interim injunction to restrain AutoStore Technology AS ("AutoStore") from disclosing an allegedly confidential and privileged document to the US International Trade Commission .  The document had been delivered to Ocado in "without prejudice" negotiations to settle various disputes between the parties.   In the proceedings before the Commission, AutoSrore alleged that Ocado had infringed several of its US patents.  Ocado pleaded that AutoStore was estopped from alleging infringement on the ground that AutosSrore had previously assured Ocado that Ocado had not infringed those patents.  AutoStore claimed that the docum

Patents - Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v Oneplus Technology

Xiaomi Tech Park, Beijing Author Plerxemo   Licence CC BY-SA 3,0   Source Wikimedia Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1541 (Pat) (8 June 2021) Sometimes a procedural application can lead to a debate on fundamental principles of substantive law. Such was the case in  Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1541 (Pat) (8 June 2021).  The application was brought by Xiaomi Cimmunications Inc. and others ("the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th defendants who are referred to in the judgment as "the Xiaomi defendants").  They applied for the claim in this action by Sisvel International SA  ("Sisvel") (the second claimant) to be dismissed and for all future claims by Sisvel against the Xiaomi defendants to be stayed. The Litigation Sisvel administers a portfolio of patents for mobile telec