NIPC Law

Supreme People's Court of the Peoples' Republic of China Author ONUnicorn   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia   Common   J ane Lambert Patents Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Nokia Technologies OY and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd and other s (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 2952 (Pat) (4 Nov 2021) This was an application to HH Judge Hacon sitting as a judge of the Patents Court to set aside service of patent infringement proceedings on defendants that had been incorporated in China and to stay the action against the defendants that had been incorporated here to abide the outcome of proceedings in China to determine the terms of a FRAND licence for the claimants' patent portfolio on the basis that China was the more appropriate forum.  Alternatively, a stay of the whole action or at least the determination of the licence terms was sought on case management grounds.        The applicants contended that the circumstances that had led to the Supreme Court's decision in 

Author Karjis Sambrans   Licence  CC BY 2.0   Source Wikimedia Common s Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Ian Karet)  Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd another v Generics (UK) Ltd (T/A Viatris) and another [2021] EWHC 2897 (Pat) (29 Ort 2021) This was an application by Generics (UK) Limited and Mylan UK Healthcare Limited ("Mylan") for a stay of the expedited trial that had been ordered by Mr Justice Mellor in  Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd and another v Generics UK Ltd (t/a Mylan) and another [2021] EWHC 2198 (Pat) (2 Aug 2021) which I discussed in Practice - Neurim Pharmaceuticals v Mylan   on 30 March 2022.  The purpose of the proposed stay was to await the outcome of opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office under Part V of the European Patent Convention.  The outcome of those proceedings including an appeal could be expected in 2023 or  2024. The reason why Mr Justice Mellor ordered an expedited trial is that European patent 3,103,443  had a very short ter

Jane Lambert   Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor)  Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2826 (Pat) (22 Oct 2021) In Disclosure - Anan Kasei Co. Ltd v Neo Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) Ltd   I discussed a case in which Mr Justice Mellor refused to relax restrictions on highly confidential material that had been disclosed for external eyes only ("EEO").  EEO essentially means a party's solicitors and counsel but not the party itself.  In  Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2826 (Pat) (22 Oct 2021), the same judge reached an opposite decision even though he applied the same guidelines. The application for the relaxation of EEO restrictions was one of two applications by Huawei Technologies (UK) Ltd. ("HTUK"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Chinese telecommunications equipment giant, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The other application was for an order for the claimant, Godo Kaish

Ceric Oxide Author  Walkerma  Reproduced with kind permission of the copyright owner C   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) A nan Kasei Co. Ltd and another  v Neo Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 2825 (Pat) (22 Oct 2021) This was a dispute over the terms on which documents containing confidential information relating to the business of the claimants and to two of their trading partners ("Party A" and "Party B") could be disclosed to the defendants.  Those documents were: I. a single (electronic) document called the corrected Sales CM Report that had hitherto been provided to the defendants on an External Eyes Only (EEO) basis. II. a category of documents comprising the claimants' extended disclosure that had also been supplied to the defendants on an EEO basis. III. a Supply & Purchase Agreement made between the claimants and Party A IV. the Party A Licence Agreement, Amendment #1 to the Supply & Purchase Agreemen