Showing posts from December, 2023

The Supreme Court's Judgment in DABUS

Author Dietary Rabich   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed   S ource Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Supreme Court  (Lords Hodge, Kitchin, Hamblen, Leggatt and Richards)   Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks   [2023] UKSC 49 (20 Dec 2023) I mentioned the hearing of the appeal from the Court of Appeal's judgment in  Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks And Designs   [2021] RPC 19, [2022] Bus LR 375, [2021] EWCA Civ 1374 in DABUS in the Supreme Court   on 12 April 2023.  On 20 Dec 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed that appeal in  Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Mark s [2023] UKSC 49.  The Court's judgment was delivered by Lord Kitchin. What This Appeal Was Not About In paras [48] and [49] of his judgment, Lord Kitchin said: "[48] The Comptroller has emphasised, correctly in my view, that this appeal is not concerned with the broader question whether technical advances generated by machines acting autonomously and

Passing off and Breach of Confidence - Cosmopolitan Recruitment v Ludley and Another

Author  Basher  Eyre  Licence  CC BY-SA 2.0   Source  Wikimedia Commons   Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Melissa Clarke) PSN Recruitments Ltd  v Ludley and another [2023] EWHC 3153 (IPEC) (8 Dec 2023) This was a claim by PSN Recruitment Ltd (trading as Cosmopolitan Recruitment ("Cosmopolitan") against its former employee, Graeme Ludley ("Mr Ludley").   Mr Ludley had emailed to himself particulars of Cosmopolitan's clients. set up a Greenscape Specialist Recruitment Ltd ("Greenscape") as a competing business and told Cosmopolitan's clients that he was still working for the same employer but from a different location and under a different corporate name.  Cosmopolitan sued Mr Ludley and the company for breach of confidence and passing off  in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC") . Their defence to the breach of confidence claim was that the information was easily obtainable from trade publications and emai

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence - Getty Images (US) Inc and others v Stability AI Ltd

Jane Lambert   Chancery Division (Mrs Justice Joanna Smith)  Getty Images (US) Inc and others v Stability AI Lt d [2023] EWHC 3090 (Ch) (1 Dec 2023) The defendant company, Stability AI Ltd., offers to create images to its customers' specifications using a type of artificial intelligence known as "stable diffusion" .  The image in Wikipedia of a spaceman on a horse is an example.  The claimants. Getty Images (US) Inc. and its subsidiaries complain that Stability AI reproduces content from their photo libraries to make such images without their licence.  They have brought proceedings for infringement of copyright, database rights and trade marks and passing off.  Stability AI applied for summary judgment or a strike out of the claim under CPR Part 24  and CPR 3.4 . It also requested further information of the claim under CPR Part 18 .  The Getty companies cross-applied to fix dates for the case management conference, pre-trial review and trial window and permission to amen

Patents - EnOcean GmbH v Far Eastern Manufacturing Ltd.

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Nicholas Caddick KC)  EnOcean GmbH v Far Eastern Manufacturing Ltd and another [2023] EWHC 2615 (IPEC) (24 Oct 2023) This was an action for the infringement of claims 1 and 3 of European patent (UK) 1 611 663 B3  by the importation into, and marketing in, the UK of a product called the Quinetic Wireless Switch and a counterclaim for revocation on the grounds of anticipation and obviousness .   The action and counterclaim came on before Mr Nicholas Caddick KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge between 21 and 22 Sept 2023,  By his judgment dated 24 Oct 2023 Mr Caddick held that the patent was obvious over  UK Patent No. GB 879,938 ("Harding") ,  He dismissed the action and allowed the counterclaim in   EnOcean GmbH v Far Eastern Manufacturing Ltd and another  [2023] EWHC 2615 (IPEC) (24 Oct 2023). The Issues The deputy judge noted at para [3] of his judgment that the defendants, Far Eastern Manufacturing Limited and TL