Showing posts from January, 2023

Patents: Oxford University Innovation Ltd v Oxford Nanoimaging Ltd

Author Kamyar Ali   Licence CC BY 2.0   Source Wikimedia Commons South Park, Oxford   Jane Lambert Patents Count (Daniel Alexander KC)  Oxford University Innovation Ltd v Oxford Nanoimaging Ltd [2022] EWHC 3200 (Pat) (23 Dec 2022) This was an action by Oxford University Innovations Ltd , ("OUI") to recover the royalties due under a licence agreement that it had entered with Oxford Nanoimaging Ltd . ("ONI") on 26 April 2016.  OUI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oxford University.  Mr Daniel Alexander KC, who tried the action as a deputy judge of the High Court, described OUI as "the technology transfer arm of the University".  OUI owns the patents and other intellectual property rights relating to a compact, super-resolution imaging device known as the "Nanoimager". The device was largely invented by one Bo Jing  initially while he was employed as an intern and later while he was a DPhil student at the University. Mr Jing is now a director and

Patents, Copyright and Passing off - Price v Flitcraft Ltd.

Author Skip88   Licence Public Domain Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Nicholas Caddick KC)  Price and others v Flitcraft Ltd and others [2022] EWHC 3381 (Pat) (20 Dec 2022) This was an action for patent and copyright infringement and passing off.  The patents in suit were GB2415714C  and GB2436989B.  The first claimant, Philip Price ("Mr Price"), claimed to own the patents. He contended that he had assigned the patents to one Fred Bridge ("Mr Bridge") shortly before he was adjudged bankrupt and that Mr Bridge had reassigned them back to him upon his discharge from bankruptcy.   The second claimant, Supawall Ltd. ("Supawall") claimed to be Mr Price's exclusive licensee.  Mr Price and Supawall alleged that the first and second defendants, Flitcraft Ltd ("Flitcraft") and Flitcraft Timber Frame Ltd., had infringed the patents by marketing and supplying a product known as "Injectawall". The third and fourth defen

Arbitration - S3D Interactive Inc. v Oovee Ltd.

London Court of International Arbitration Author Mar9254   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commmons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords justices Lewison, Popplewell and Birss) S3D Interactive Inc v Oovee Ltd [2022] WLR(D) 516, [2022] EWCA Civ 1665 This was an appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Butcher to enforce a peremptory order of an arbitrator under s.42 of the Arbitration Act 1996 notwithstanding the appellant's contention that the arbitration agreement had been repudiated. The parties managed to resolve their differences after the appeal was heard but before judgment was delivered.  Because of public interest in the issue, their lordships stated how they would have decided the appeal had it not been settled.  Arbitration In "What is Arbitration"  the World Intellectual Property Organization  defined arbitration as  "a procedure in which a dispute is submitted, by agreement of the parties, to one or more arbitrators who make a binding decision