NIPC Law

By John Schmidt - en:Image:Sequencing.jpg, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1584721   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss)  Illumina Cambridge Ltd v Latvia MGI Tech SIA and others [2021] EWHC 57 (Pat) (20 Jan 2021) This was an action for patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation.  The defendants, referred to collectively as "MGI" , wish to sell  DNA sequencing systems in the UK.  The claimant,  Illumina Cambridge Ltd ("Illumina")  contended that 4 of those systems infringed its patents. MGI denied infringement and alleged that the patents were invalid for obviousness, insufficiency and added matter, The action and counterclaim came on for trial before Mr Justice Birss on  9  to  13 , 16 to  20 , 25 , 26  Nov and 9  Dec 2020.  Judgment was delivered on 20 Jan 2021 (see Illumina Cambridge Ltd v Latvia MGI Tech SIA and others [2021] EWHC 57 (Pat) (20 Jan 2021). T...

Author  Subhrajyoti Saha,   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikipedia   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss)  Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others [2020] EWHC 2746 (Pat) (16 Oct 2020) This is the first of a series of trials between Optis Cellular Technology LLC and its subsidiaries ("Optis") and Apple Inc and its subsidiaries on whether certain patents held by Optis are valid and essential for compliance with standard 3GPP TS 45.008 concerning GSM. It was common ground that Apple's products comply with the standard.  Consequently, if any of the patents is valid and essential it would follow that that patent would have been infringed. The patent in suit was  EP (UK) 1 230 818 for a Method for improving handovers between mobile communication systems . The action came on for trial before Mr Justice Birss between 5th and 13th Oct 2020. His lordship handed down judgment on 16 Oct 2020 (see Optis Cellula...

Jane Lambert A question that I have been asked more than once is "What exactly does a FRAND licence look like?" Before the Supreme Court handed down its decision on 26 Aug 2020 I could say: "Let's wait for the Supreme Court's judgment,"  The Supreme Court did not answer that question in its judgment though it has given some guidance.  I shall discuss this topic in my talk on 3 Sept 2020.  If you want to take part in the conversation, register here. The starting point is to look at the draft agreement between (1) Unwired Planet Limited Liability Company and (2) Unwired Planet International LimitedandHuawei Technologies Co., Ltd.Huawei Technologies (UK) Co., Ltd. at the end of the judgment of Mr Justice Birss (as he then was) in Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd. and another   [2017] RPC 20, [2017] EWHC 1304 (Pat). The judgment of which that draft agreement forms part has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Unwired ...

Author Basher Eyre Licence CC BY-SA 2.0   Source Wikipedia Rolls Buildin g Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birrs)  Evalve Inc and others  v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd (#2) [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat) (12 March 2020) A month after their trial before Mr Justice Birss in  Evalve Inc and others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd (#1) [ 2020] EWHC 514 (Pat) (12 March 2020 and nearly two months before they know who had won, the parties found themselves back in the Rolls Building which I blogged in  Patents - Evalve Inc. and Others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd (#1)   29 March 2020 for a further trial before the same judge. The issue in the second trial was whether Edwards Lifesciences Ltd. should be injuncted and, if so, on what terms should it lose the patent action.  In his judgment in  Evalve Inc and Others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd   (#2) [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat) (12 March 2020) which he delivered the same day as his judgment in the...

Author Goodtiming8871   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikipedia Cellular Network  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss)  Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and other s [2020] EWHC 14 (Pat) (8 Jan 2020) This was a patent infringement claim by  Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL  against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd .,  ZTE Corporation  and their respective British subsidiaries.  The patents alleged to have been infringed are European patents (UK) 1 878 177  ("177"), 3 267 722  ("722") and 3 197 206  ("206"). Conversant had declared those patents to be essential to certain 3G and 4G standards. It argued that manufacturing, distributing or marketing items that met those standards without its licence would necessarily infringe the patents. The defendants contended that the patents were invalid on various grounds and denied that the patents were essential to t...