NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lords Justices Birss and Arnold)  Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks v Emotional Perception AI Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 825 (19 July 2024) This was an appeal by the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks ("the Comptroller") from the decision of Sir Anthony Mann sitting as a judge of the High Court in    Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] [2024] Bus LR 14, [2023] WLR(D) 500, [2023] EWHC 2948 (Ch)) (21 Nov 2023). Sir Anthony had allowed an appeal by Emotional Perceptions AI Ltd ("EPL") against the decision of the hearing officer Phil Thorpe in Re Emotional Perception AI Limited's Application  BL/O/542/22 of 22 June 2022. In that decision, Mr Thorpe upheld the examiner's objection to UK Patent application  GB1904713.3 for a Method of training a neural network to reflect emotional perception and re...

Author Karjis Sambrans   Licence  CC BY 2.0   Source Wikimedia Common s Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Ian Karet)  Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd another v Generics (UK) Ltd (T/A Viatris) and another [2021] EWHC 2897 (Pat) (29 Ort 2021) This was an application by Generics (UK) Limited and Mylan UK Healthcare Limited ("Mylan") for a stay of the expedited trial that had been ordered by Mr Justice Mellor in  Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd and another v Generics UK Ltd (t/a Mylan) and another [2021] EWHC 2198 (Pat) (2 Aug 2021) which I discussed in Practice - Neurim Pharmaceuticals v Mylan   on 30 March 2022.  The purpose of the proposed stay was to await the outcome of opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office under Part V of the European Patent Convention.  The outcome of those proceedings including an appeal could be expected in 2023 or  2024. The reason why Mr Justice Mellor ordered an expedited trial is that Eur...

Jane Lambert   Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss) IPCom GmbH & Co Kg v HTC Europe Co Ltd and others [2020] EWHC 2941 (Pat) (4 Nov 2020) This was an application by the defendants to strike out part of the  points of claim in an inquiry as to the claimant's damages for patent infringement that had been ordered by the Chancellor, Sir Geoffrey Vos, on 17 Dec 2019. The claimant claimed millions of dollars whereas the defendants contended that it was entitled only to a small percentage of that sum. The patent in suit was EP (UK) 1 841 268   which had been declared essential to an ETSI telecommunications standard.  The claimant had given an undertaking to license the use of the patent to implementers of the standards on FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms.  The patent had been the subject of litigation for many years.  When the case came on before the Chancellor the patent had only a few more weeks to run.  The defendants withdrew t...

Author Milkerfish Source Wikipedia   Creative Commons   CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication Court of Appeal (Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justices Kitchin and Floyd)    Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computer Incorporation and Others [2017] EWCA Civ 1526 (11 Oct 2017)   Jane Lambert In FRAND   8 Oct 2017 I discussed the terms upon which patents for inventions that are essential to a standard are licensed.  I noted that courts around the world had held that those terms should be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory  - in other words, FRAND. The Court of Appeal's decision in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computer Incorporation and Others [2017] EWCA Civ 1526 (11 Oct 2017) concerned the construction of a clause licensing such patents. It is important to note, however, that none of the judges who heard the appeal mentioned the acronym, FRAND, and it appeared only twice in the judgment of the trial ju...