Showing posts from January, 2022

Patents - Tehrani v Hamilton Bonaduz AG and others

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon) Tehrani v Hamilton Bonaduz AG and others   [2021] EWHC 3457 (IPEC) (22 Dec 2021) This was an action for patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation.  The patent in suit was  GB2423721B  and not GB2424721 as stated in the transcript. The invention for which the patent was granted was a “Method and apparatus for controlling a ventilator”. The patentee, Professor Tehrani, complained that the marketing of Hamilton Medical's Invellivent-ASV system infringed her patent. The suppliers of that system, Hamilton Bondauz AG and others, challenged the validity of the patent on grounds of anticipation, obviousness and insufficiency.  The action and counterclaim came on for trial before Judge Hacon on 6 and 7 July 2021. By para [117] of his judgment in Tehrani v Hamilton Bonaduz AG and others  [2021] EWHC 3457 which was delivered on 22 Dec 2021, the judge held that the patent was invalid for want of novelty and an

Patents - The DABUS Appeal

Drachma Coin depicting the Automaton Talon Author Jastrow   Copyright Released by owner Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Arnold and Birss and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing) Thaler v Comptroller of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs [2021] EWCA Civ 1374 (21 Sep 2021) This was an appeal by Dr Stephen Thaler against the decision of Mr Justice Marcus Smith in Thaler v The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2020] EWHC 2412 (Pat) (21 Sept 2020) which I discussed in  Thaler v The Comptroller - The Patents Court decides whether Machines can be Inventors   on 22 Sept 2020.  Readers will recall that Mr Thaler has made a "creativity machine" called DABUS.  He alleged that DABUS had invented a Food Container and Devices and methods for obtaining advanced attention  which he applied to patent.  The Comptroller refused Dr Thaler's application and his decision was upheld by Mr Justice Marcus Smith.  The appeal came on before L

Trade Marks - Re FOOTWARE, Puma SE v Nike Innovate CV

Author Anthony Appleyard   Licence  CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons A   Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Zacaroli) Puma SE v Nike Innovate CV [2021] EWHC 1438 In  Trade Marks - Equisafety v Battle Hayward and Bower   7 Jan 2021 IP Northwest, I discussed Mr Nicholas Caddick QC's judgment in Equisafety Ltd v Battle, Hayward and Bower, Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 3296 (IPEC) (8 Dec 2021) where the defendants counterclaimed for a declaration that the registration of MERCURY for a range of high visibility equestrian products was invalid on the ground that the mark was descriptive. This is another case where the registration of a word mark was challenged on a similar ground. The mark in question was FOOTWARE  and registration was sought by Nike Innovate CV for a wide range of goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 relating to computing and telecommunications. The application was opposed by Puma SE on the following grounds: "i) Under s. 3 (1) (b), that the ma

Patents - Promptu Systems Corporation v Sky UK Ltd.

  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Meade)  Promptu Systems Corporation v Sky UK Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2021 (Pat) (19 July 2021) This was a claim for patent infringement by Promptu Systems Corporation ("Promptu") against Sky UK Ltd. and various related companies ("Sky") and a counterclaim by Sky for revocation. The patent in suit had been granted for a system and method of voice recognition near a wireline node of a network supporting cable television and/or video delivery by the European Patent Office under publication number EP1290889B1 . The action and counterclaim came on before Mr Justice Meade on 14 to 16 June 2021 and his lordship delivered judgment on 19 July 2021 (see Promptu Systems Corporation v Sky UK Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2021 (Pat) (19 July 2021). By para [241] of his judgment, Mr Justice Meade held that the patent was invalid and should be revoked but had it been valid it would have been infringed. The Invention The abstract describ