NIPC Law

Author   Dfrg.msc   Public Domain Source  Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Arnold and Nugee and Sir Christopher Floyd) Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG    [2022] EWCA Civ 1617 (8 Dec 2022) This was an appeal against Mrs Justice Bacon's refusal to grant an Arrow declaration in  Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG [2022] EWHC 2779 (Ch) (19 Oct 2022). Lord Justice Arnold defined an Arrow declaration as "a declaration that a product, process or use was lacking in novelty or obvious as at the priority date of a patent application" at para [17] of his judgment in  Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG [2022] EWCA Civ 1617.  He explained that Arrow declarations take their name from the seminal decision of Kitchin J (as he then was) in Arrow Generics Ltd v Merck & Co Inc [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat), [2008] Bus LR 487.  He continued:   "The point of such declaration is that it is in effect a declaration that the claimant will have a Gi

  Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Arnold and Nugee and Sir Christopher Floyd)  Philip Morris Products, SA v Nicoventures Trading Ltd and another [2022] EWCA Civ 1638 (16 Dec 2022) This was an appeal by Philip Morris Products SA ("PMI") against the finding by Mr Justice Marcuas Smith that its European patents (UK), EP 3 248 483, EP 3 248 484 . EP 3 248 485 and EP 3 248 486  were invalid for obviousness.  I discussed that case in  Patents - Nicoventures Trading Ltd v Philip Morris Products SA   on 24 Nov 2021. Grounds of Appeal PMI appealed on the following grounds: "i) Ground 1: the judge wrongly construed the 486 patent when he held that both multiple separately connected electrically conductive tracks and a single track with a plurality of portions were covered by claim 1, when only the latter was covered; ii) Ground 2: the judge asked the wrong question on obviousness because of the error identified in ground 1; iii)

  Jane Lambert Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Nicholas Caddick QC) Vernacare Ltd v Moulded Fibre Products Ltd.   [2022] EWHC  2197 (IPEC) This was an action for patent infringement.  It was brought by  Vernacare Limited ("Vernacare")  against  Moulded Fibre Products Limited (“MFP”).   Vernacare held the following UK patents:  GB 2446793 (“793”)   for a wash bowl. and  GB2439947 ("947")  for mouldable paper pulp composition.  It complained that a wash bowl marketed by WFP infringed both patents. WFP challenged the validity of those patents and denied that its wash bowl infringed 793.  The proceedings were tried by Nicholas Caddick QC (as he then was) sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division between 13 and 15 June 2022. He delivered judgment on 15 June 2022 (see  Vernacare Ltd v Moulded Fibre Products Ltd [2022] EWHC 2197 (IPEC)).  By para [140] of his judgment, he held that both patents were va

The Rubettes. (2022, July 18). In Wikipedia . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The _Rubette s Licence CC BY 3.0 Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Ms Pat Treacy) Alan Williams Entertainments Ltd. and another v Clarke and others [1922] EWHC 1798 (IPEC) (13 Jully 2022) This was a dispute between former members of a rock group known as The Rubettes .  The   claimants were Alan Williams Entertainments Ltd. and one Alan Williams.  The company was owned by Mr Williams and his wife.  Mick Clarke and John Richardson, the first and second defendants, had performed with Mr Willians in the original band.   The third defendant, Steve Etherington. had joined the band later. The claimants claimed that the company (or alternatively the company and Mr Williams) owned the goodwill in the names "The Rubettes" or "The Rubettes featuring Alan Williams" ("the Rubettes' Names") in relation to live music events, merchandising, music sales and associated goods

  Jane Lambert Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property, Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor)  Alcon Eye Care UK v AMO Development, LLC   [2022] EWHC 955 (Pat) (26 April 2022) This was a claim by Alcon Eye Care UK Limited and Alcon Inc ("Alcon") for the revocation of European patent (UK) 1 835 861 B2  ("EP861") for “Apparatus for Patterned Plasma-mediated Laser Trephination of the Lens Capsule” and European Patent (UK) 2 548 528 B1 ("EP528"), entitled “Apparatus for Patterned Plasma-mediated Laser Trephination of the Lens Capsule and Three-dimensional Phaco-Segmentation”. The owner of those patents, AMO Development LLC ("AMO"). AMO counterclaimed for infringement of its patents by LenSx laser surgery system.  It was common ground that if the patents were valid they would have been infringed by that system.  The action and counterclaim came on for trial before Mr Justice Mellor between 26 Oct and 5 Nov 2021.  His lord