NIPC Law

Author Ambrosiani   Licence CC BY-SA 4,0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Marcus Smith) Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2080 (Pat) (1 July 2021) On 23 Oct 2021, I discussed Mr Justice Meade's judgment in  Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1739 (Pat) (25 June 2021). That had been "trial B" in a series of trials between the owners of certain telecommunications patents and Apple Inc and its subsidiaries.  This case was an application in a case management conference before Mr Justice Marcus Smith for trial "E".  It did not involve the claimants who were allowed to withdraw from the hearing.  It lay between the defendants and a company known only as "the third party." The Application The defendants applied for an order that a licence with the third party be provided for inspection to the claimants in accorda...

Jane Lambert Patents Court  (Mr Justice Meade)  Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others     [2021] EWHC 1739 (Pat) (25 June 2021) This was the second of a series of trials between the claimant patent portfolio owners and the defendant implementors in FRAND litigation.  The trial had been intended to decide the validity and essentiality of  European patent (UK) number 2 229 744 B1  and whether it had been infringed.  One of the defences was proprietary estoppel or, alternatively, acquiescence.  Essentiality was conceded just before trial leaving validity and proprietary estoppel or acquiescence as the only issues.  The case came on for trial before Mr Justice Meade in April 2021,   He delivered judgment on 25 June 2021. At  para [563]  of his judgment, he  held that the patent was valid and that the proprietary estoppel/acquiescence defence failed. The Invention The abstract summa...

Author Dfrg.msc   Public Domain Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents are intended to promote innovation but occasionally they work against the public interest.  For instance, the term of a pharmaceutical patent that is about to expire may effectively be prolonged by a patent for a new dosing regime or a second medical use.  Sometimes the patents for such inventions may be revoked  or a  declaration of non-infringement  may be granted  A company that wants to launch a competing product will often bring revocation or non-infringement proceedings to clear the way for the launch. However, s.69 (2) of the Patents Act 1977 makes clear that such proceedings can be brought only after a patent has been granted.   There is a risk in launching a new product while a patent application is being considered because  s.69 (1).  allows a claim for damages to be backdated to the publication of the application.   That can b...

Author TheBrickeninaGlory Licence CC BY-SA 3.0  Wikimedia Common s   J ane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr David Stome)  Cormeton Fire Protection Ltd v Pyrocel Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 2384 (IPEC) (26 Aug 2021) These were further proceedings in 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.  There had already been a trial before Mr David Stone which I discussed in  Trade Marks - Cormeton Fire Protection Ltd v Cormeton Electronics Ltd.   on 13 Feb 2021.  Following his judgment in that case,  Mr Stone granted the claimant an injunction, orders for delivery up, disclosure of such information as the claimant might reasonably require to choose between an inquiry as to damages  ( Island Records  disclosure) and an account of profits and an inquiry or account ar the claimant's election (see para [3] of Mr Ston...

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court   (Mr David Stone) Lutec (UK) Ltd and others v Cascade Holdings Ltd and another (Costs) [2021] EWHC 2259 (IPEC) (13 Aug 2021) In Lutec (UK) Ltd and others v Cascade Holdings Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 1936 (IPEC) (09 July 2021), Mr David Stone found that the defendants had infringed the third claimant's registered designs. I discussed the case in  Registered Designs - Lutec (UK) Ltd v Cascade Holdings Ltd   on 2 Aug 2021.  The learned deputy judge  awarded  the third claimant its costs, to be assessed if not agreed. The parties were unable to agree on those costs so they asked Mr Stone to assess them. Costs in Ithe Patents County Court In  New Patents County Court Rules   (31 Oct 2021 NIPC Law), I discussed changes to Part 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Part 45 Practice Direction which limited the costs that could be recovered in the Patents County Court.  Essentially, tho...