Showing posts from April, 2024

Patents - the Appeal in Supponor Ltd v AIM Sport Development AG

Etihad Stadium Author  Cléria De Souza   Licence   CC BY  2.0    Source  Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Males,, Phillips and Birss)  Supponor Ltd and another v AIM Sport Development AG [2024] EWCA Civ 396 (23 April 2024) This was an appeal against Mr Justice Meade's judgment in AIM Sport Vision AG v Supponor Ltd and another [2023] EWHC 164 (Pat) (30 Jan 2023) which I discussed in  Patents - AIM Sport Vision v Supponor   on 6 Sept 2023.  That had been an action by AIM Sport Vision AG ("AIM") against Supponor OY and Supponor Ltd. ("Supponor") for infringement of  European patent (UK) 3 295 663 B1  by Supponot's SVB system and a counterclaim by Supponor for the revocation of the patent on the grounds of obviousness and insufficiency.  His lordship had held that the patent was valid and infringed. The Invention The patent was granted for digitally overlaying an image with another image.   Many sports stadiums are equipped with d

Patents - Philip Morris Products v Nicoventures

Jane Lambert Patents Court  (HH Judge Hacon)  Philip Morris Products SA and another v Nicoventures Trading Ltd and another  [2023] EWHC 2616 (Pat) (25 Oct 2023) This was a claim by Philip Morris Products SA and Philip Morris Limited ("PMI") for the revocation of European patent (UK) 3 367 830 B1  ("EP830") and a counterclaim by Nicoventures Trading Limited and British American Tobacco (Investments)  Limited ("BAT") for the infringement of that patent.  There was also an application by BAT to amend the patent and an application by PMI for an Arrow declaration. These proceedings came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon sitting as a judge of the High Court between 21 and 23 and on 27 and 28 Sept, 2023.  The learned judge delivered judgment on 25 Ocr 2023 (see  Philip Morris Products SA and another v Nicoventures Trading Ltd and another [2023] EWHC 2616 (Pat) (25 Oct 2023)). By para [216] of his judgment he dismissed the counterclaim.  The patent had no

Trade Marks - Gibraltar (UK) Ltd and another v Viovet Ltd

Molly (x) 2020 Jane Lambert: all rights reserved Jane Lambert   Chancery Division, Intellectual Property List  (James Pickering KC) Gibraltar (UK) Ltd and another v Viovet Ltd   [2024] EWHC 777 (Ch) "Comparative advertising" is defined by reg 2 (1) of The Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 (SI 2008 No 1276) as "advertising which in any way, either explicitly or by implication, identifies a competitor or a product offered by a competitor."  The same regulation defines "advertising" is "any form of representation which is made in connection with a trade, business, craft or profession in order to promote the supply or transfer of a product." That form of advertissing was prohibited by s.4 (1) of the Trade Marks Act 1938  following the Court of Appeal's judgment in  Bismag Ltd v Amblins (Chemists) Ltd.  [1940] Ch 667, [1940] 2 All ER 608, 109 LJ Ch 305, 57 RPC 209, 84 Sol Jo 381, 163 LT 127, 56 TLR 721.  The 1938 Act

Practice - Ocean On Land Technology (UK) Ltd and Another v Land and Others

Lobster Author Bart Btaun   Licence Public Domain   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court  (Pat Treacy)  Ocean On Land Technology (UK) Ltd and Another v Land and Others [2024] EWHC 396 (IPEC) (4 March 2024) On 16 Jan 2024, Ms Pat Treacy, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, heard the following applications in an action for breach of contract and patent and trade mark infringement. The claimants applied to strike out certain paragraphs of the first and second defendants' witness statements.  Alternatively, they sought permission to reply to those paragraphs if those passages were not struck out. The defendants also sought permission to adduce additional evidence in reply to one of the claimants' witness statements.  Ms Treacy handed down her judgment in   Ocean On Land Technology (UK) Ltd and another Land and other s [2024] EWHC 396 (IPEC) on 4 March 2024. The Litigation The first and second defendants are Richard Andrew Land an

Practice - MCPS v Made TV

Royal Courts of Justice Author Aurelian Guichard   Licence CC BY-SA Deed   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Recorder Michaels )  Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society Ltd and another v Made Television Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 405 (IPEC) (29 Feb 2024) This was an application by the defendants to a debt recovery and copyright infringement claim for permission to file and serve an Amended Defence and Counterclaim. The claimants offered to consent to amendments to the Defence but not to the launch of a counterclaim.  The application was heard by Recorder Michaels at a case management conference on 21 Feb 2024.  The recorder handed down her judgment on 29 Feb 2024. The claimants referred the recorder to CPR 17.1 (2) (b) , CPR 20.4 (2) (b ) and paras [40] to [42] of Lady Justice Asplin's judgment in Elite Property Holdings Ltd and Another v Barclays Bank Plc [2019] EWCA Civ 2212: "[40] …it is important to bear in mind that the ove