Posts

Showing posts from October, 2021

Arrow Declarations

Image
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 be a problem not only for the competitor whose market entry is delayed

Practice - Cormeton Fire Protection Ltd v Pyrocel Ltd

Image
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 Stone's judgment in   Cormeton Fire Protectio

Costs - Lutec (UK) Ltd v Cascade Holdings Ltd

Image
  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, those costs were limited to a scale set out in T

Patents - Research And Development Ltd v dSPACE Digital Signal Processing & Control Engineering GMBH

Image
Jane Lambert   Patents Court (Mr Justuce Meade) Add2 Research and Development Ltd v dSPACE Digital Signal Processing & Control Engineering GMBH and another [2021] EWHC 1630 (Pat) (17 June 2021) This was an action for the infringement of European Patent (UK) 1 163 622 B1  and counterclaim for revocation on grounds of obviousness and insufficiency.  The action and counterclaim came on for trial before Mr Justice Meade between 18 and 21 and on 25 and 26 May 2021. His lordship delivered judgment on 17 June 2021 (see Add2 Research and Development Ltd v dSPACE Digital Signal Processing & Control Engineering GMBH and another [2021] EWHC 1630 (Pat) (17 June 2021)).   By para [247] of his judgment, the learned judge held that all the claims were invalid for obviousness but had they been valid the patent would have been infringed. The Patent The title of the patent was "interface circuit".  It is described as follows in the abstract: "A signal interface circuit (10) ha

The Formstein Defence

Image
Author Rklawton   Licence   CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Yesterday the Intellectual Property Office added a new para  125.17.8  on the Formstein defence  to its Manual of Patent Practice .  Considering that the defence is a doctrine of German law and that there has been no firm decision on whether that doctrine applies to this country, that is quite remarkable. Para 125.17.8 describes the doctrine as: "a principle developed under German patent law in relation to infringement and the doctrine of equivalents (DoE), whereby if an alleged infringer can show that an equivalent is a non-inventive variant of the claimed invention, then the patent’s scope for the purposes of determining any infringement is held to its normal construction – in other words the DoE does not apply." I have referred to the doctrine in  Patents - Technetix BV and others v Teleste Ltd . on 19 Feb 2010 and  Patents - Facebook Ireland Ltd v Voxer IP LLC   on 5 June 2021. To understa

Copyright - Smith v Newman

Image
Authors Ben Sutherland   Beyond My Ken   Licence CC BY-SA 2.0 Source Wikimedia Commons     Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Zacaroli) Smith v Dryden and others [2021] EWHC 2277 (11 Aug 2021) This was a claim by Kelly-Marie Smith against Kesi Dryden and others for copyright infringement. The claimant wrote the words and music for a song called Can You Tell Me .  She claimed that copyright subsisted in those works and that those copyrights had been infringed by the performance, recording and publication of the song Waiting All Night.  The song had been written by James Newman and recorded by the band Rudimental .  The action came on for trial before Mr Justice Zacaroli between 20 and 26 July 2021. At para [86] of his judgment in Smith v Dryden and others [2021] EWHC 2277, the learned judge dismissed the claim. The judge referred to s.1 (1) and s.3 (1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 . He also cited para [33] of Judge Birss QC's judgment in Mitchell v Brit