NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Battlekart Europe SA v Chaos Karts 1 Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 1936 (IPEC) (25 July 2025) This was an action by Battlekart Europe SA ("Battlekart") against Little Lion Entertainment Ltd ("Little Lion"), its subsidiaries, Chaos Karts Limited and The Ents Inc Limited and their director, Thomas Maguire for the infringement of European patent (UK) 3 304 522 B8  and a counterclaim by the defendants for revocation of the patent on grounds of obviousness , implausibility and added matter.   The action and counterclaim were tried by HH Judge Hacon between 17 and 19 June 2025.  By para [136] o f his judgment in Battlekart Europe SA v Chaos Karts 1 Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 1936 (IPEC), which he handed down on 25 July 2025, the learned judge held that the patent was invalid for lack of an inventive step and added matter. The Patent EP3304522 B8 had been granted for a system for creating an imm...

Standard YouTube Licence Jane Lambert The reaction of Brenda from Bristol to Mrs May's announcement of a snap election earlier this year made her an internet star.   There was a similar reaction to the government's introduction of a new Data Protection Bill last week and one can understand why.  Three statutes, one Council regulation and a directive in a little over 30 years for the processing of personal data is quite a lot of legislation - especially for an activity that the United States leaves largely unregulated. The Younger Report  Towards the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, concern was expressed in a number of countries about the power of computers to gather, collate and disseminate personal information. In the UK, such concerns were referred to a committee chaired by Sir Kenneth Younger  that had been appointed to consider privacy.  In its report - the Younger Committee Report on Privacy 1972 (Cmnd 5012) - the committee found no...

On 9 July 2012 HH Judge Birss QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, held in Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc . [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat) that Samsung's Galaxy 10.1, 8.9 and 7.7 tablet computers  did not infringe Apple Inc.'s Community design number 000181607-0001 . I discussed that judgment in this blog in " Apple v Samsung - Compare and Contrast" on 28 Aug 2012. A few days afterwards in  Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc (No. 2) [2012] EWHC 2049 (Pat) (18 July 2012) Judge Birss ordered Apple to display the following notice on the home page of their website and in advertisements in the national press: "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design 000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyper...