NIPC Law

Downing College, Cambridge Photo I Hunte r Reproduction licensed by the copyright owner Source Wikipedia Jane Lambert Case No. UNCT/14/2  Eli Lilly & Co. v Government of Canada, (16 March 2017) ICSID At 10:00 on 17 Aug 2017 I shall give a talk to the IP Summer School at Cambridge entitled  Bilateral Investment Treaties & Exporters' Rights Post-Brexit .   If you want to hear it there is still space on the course.  There are lots of distinguished speakers  who will speak on many other interesting topics . There will also be an exhibition, reception and other social events.  You can book your place  here . Why this is topical The reason I have been asked to speak on the topic is that "securing new trading agreements with other countries" is one of the objectives announced in the Brexit white paper . Unfortunately, many of the countries that we might wish to approach are on the US Trade Representative's watc...

Jane Lambert In anticipation of our departure from the European Union. Her Majesty's government and businesses in the United Kingdom have been exploring the possibility of developing new markets for British goods and services overseas. Only this week, the Prime Minister visited Saudi Arabia and Jordan (see  Prime Minister's visit to Saudi Arabia and Jordan: April 2017   4 April 2017 HMG's website) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in India as part of the 9th UK-India Economic and Financial Dialogue (see  UK-India economic and trade relations to take centre stage on two-day visit   4 April 2017 HMG's website). One of the advantages of trading within the EU is that the legal systems of the member states have been harmonized over the years and supplemented with a growing body of Union law. This is as true of intellectual property  as of everything else with the result that the legal protection of intellectual assets  in any of the...

In Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Others   [2007] Bus LR 1796, [2007] BusLR 1796, [2008] 1 All ER 425, [2007] UKHL 43 Lord Hoffmann described s.7 (2) and (3) of the Patents Act 1977  as "an exhaustive code for determining who is entitled to the grant of a patent." For determining entitlement to the grant maybe because s.32 (3) of the Act provides that "Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2)(b) above, no notice of any trust, whether express, implied or constructive, shall be entered in the register and the comptroller shall not be affected by any such notice."  But not necessarily to ownership because s.30 (1) states that patents and patent applications are personal property and sub-section (3) adds that they may vest by operation of law in the same way as any other personal property. `Disputes over equitable interests in patents or patent applications are fairly rare but they can arose in cir...

in "Bilateral Investment Treaties: Claiming Compensation from Foreign Governments under Bilateral Investment Treaties for failing to provide adequate IP Protection"   27 July 2013 I mentioned a possible claim by the US company Eli Lilly & Co. against the Canadian government under Chapter II of the agreement between the US, Canadian and Mexican governments establishing the North America Free Trade Area ( "NAFTA" ) for compensation for the invalidation of its Canadian patents by the courts of Canada. Eli Lilly claims that the invalidation of those patents is tantamount to expropriation which is contrary to art 1110 (1) of NAFTA. Lawyers acting for Eli Lilly have now filed a notice of arbitration  demanding that their claim be referred to arbitration under art 3 of the UNCITRAL  Arbitration Rules  before a tribunal consisting of three arbitrators, one appointed by each of the parties and the third presiding member to be appointed by agreement of the appoint...