Showing posts from November, 2021

An Interim Injunction in Reverse - Fiberweb Geosynthetics Ltd v Geofabrics Ltd

Author Jules Gagnage   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court (Sir Anthony Mann) Fiberweb Geosynthetics Ltd v Geofabrics Ltd [2021] EWHC 1996 (Pat) (16 July 2021) Everyone is familiar with interim injunctions.  These are orders to do or, more likely, refrain from doing something until trial or further order.  They are intended to protect an intellectual property or other rights owner from irreparable harm between the issue of proceedings and trial.  They are awarded in exchange for a promise by the person seeking the injunction to pay damages to the injuncted party should the court subsequently decide that the injunction should never have been granted. But what about the opposite case where a party that is already subject to an injunction wants to make or sell a product that may or may not infringe an intellectual property right for which a final injunction has been granted and thus breach such injunction pending the trial of its action for a dec

Patents - Nicoventures Trading Ltd v Philip Morris Products SA

Author Hoo5   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0  S ource Wikimedia Commons Head Office of the British American Tobacco Group Jane Lambert Patents Cour t (Mr Justice Marcus Smith) Nicoventures Trading Ltd v Philip Morris Products SA and another [2021] EWHC 1977 (Pat) (14 July 2021) This was an action brought by Nicoventures Trading Ltd ("Nicoventures") for the revocation of the following European patents (UK),  EP 3 248 483,   EP 3 248 484 .  EP 3 248 485  and  EP 3 248 486 .  The proprietor of those patents, Philip Morris Products SA, counterclaimed against Nicoventures and British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd. for the infringement of those patents.  As the defendants to the counterclaim are members of the British American Tobacco group, Mr Justice Marcus Smith, the judge who tried the action and counterclaim, referred to them both as "British American". The proceedings came on before his lordship between 18 and 25 May 2021.  He delivered judgment in  Nicoventures Tradi

Disclosure - Anan Kasei Co. Ltd v Neo Chemicals & Oxides

Author Thewub   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Anan Kasei Co. Ltd and another v Neo Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1972 (Pat) (13 July 2021) Much of the expense of civil litigation in England and Wales arises from disclosure and inspection of documents.  "Disclosure" means stating whether a document exists or has existed.  With a number of exceptions.  CPR 31.3 (1) entitles a party to whom a document has been disclosed to inspect that document. Unless the court orders otherwise, each party must disclose the documents on which it relies and the documents that adversely affect its own case, adversely affect or support another party’s case or documents that are required to be disclosed by a relevant practice direction (see  CPR 31.5 (1) (b) and CPR 31.6 ).  "Document" for these purposes means "anything in which information of any description is recorded" (  CPR

Patents - Insulet Corporation v Roche Diabetes Care Ltd

  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Ms Pat Treacy) Insulet Corporation v Roche Diabetes Care Ltd [2021] EWHC 1907 (Pat) (9 July 2021) This was a patent infringement claim with a patent revocation counterclaim. The patent in suit was EP (UK) 1 335 764  for a device and system for patient infusion.  The action and counterclaim came on before Ms Pat Treacy sitting as a judge of the High Court between 11 and 13 May 2021. She delivered judgment on 9 July 2021 (see Insulet Corporation v Roche Diabetes Care Ltd [2021] EWHC 1907). At para [452] of her judgment, she found that claim 2 of the patent had been anticipated by the PCT application known as "PhiScience".  At [525] she concluded that all claims other than claim 3 had been obvious over PhiScience but not over another PCT application known as "MiniMed."   At para [587] she held that all the claims in issue were invalid by reason of added matter.  Finally, she found that none of the claims in issue had been infringed. The