NIPC Law

Etihad Stadium Author Cléria De Souza   Licence CC BY  2.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court   (Mr Justice Meade)    AIM Sport Vision AG v Supponor Ltd and anothe r [2023] EWHC 164 (Pat) (30 Jan 2023) In  AIM Sport Vision AG v Supponor Ltd and another [2023] EWHC 164 (Pat) (30 Jan 2023), the claimant, AIM Sport Vision ("AIM"), accused the defendants, Supponor OY and Supponor Ltd. ("Supponor") of infringing its  European patent (UK)  3 295 663 B1  for digitally overlaying an image with another image with their "SVB System". The invention for which that patent had been granted enables the superimposition of advertisements in TV broadcasts of sporting events that are different from the advertisements seen by spectators on billboards in the stadium. They are also different from advertisements appearing in other television broadcasts of the same game. Thus, the spectators in the stadium may see...

  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Meade)  Promptu Systems Corporation v Sky UK Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2021 (Pat) (19 July 2021) This was a claim for patent infringement by Promptu Systems Corporation ("Promptu") against Sky UK Ltd. and various related companies ("Sky") and a counterclaim by Sky for revocation. The patent in suit had been granted for a system and method of voice recognition near a wireline node of a network supporting cable television and/or video delivery by the European Patent Office under publication number EP1290889B1 . The action and counterclaim came on before Mr Justice Meade on 14 to 16 June 2021 and his lordship delivered judgment on 19 July 2021 (see Promptu Systems Corporation v Sky UK Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2021 (Pat) (19 July 2021). By para [241] of his judgment, Mr Justice Meade held that the patent was invalid and should be revoked but had it been valid it would have been infringed. The Invention The abstract describ...

Wikip2011 / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss) Teva UK Ltd v Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA [2020] EWHC 1311 (Pat) (2 June 2020) This was an application by the claimant, Teva UK Ltd ("Teva") to strike out or stay a counterclaim by the defendant, Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA ("Chiesi") for an injunction to restrain the infringement of certain patents that Teva had sought to revoke. Teva argued that the counterclaim had no real prospect of success because there was no evidence that Teva threatened or intended to infringe any of the patents in suit.  Alternatively, Teva argued that the counterclaim should be stayed on the ground that the disclosure of a product description for the purpose of the litigation would mount to a concerted practice within the meaning of art 101  of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") and/or s,2  of the Competition Act 1998.  The ...

Jane Lambert Supreme Court (Lady Hale, Lords Kerr, Sumption, Hodge and Briggs) Actavis Group PTC EHF and others v ICOS Corporation and another [2019] UKSC 15 (27 March 2019) In The Cialis Litigation - Actavis Group PTC EHF and Others v Icos Corp and Another  4 Oct 2016, I discussed Mr Justice Birss's judgment in  Actavis and others v Eli Lilly and Co [2016] EWHC 1955 (Pat) (10 Aug 2016) in which he dismissed a claim for the revocation of European patent (UK) No 1,173,181  "Compositions comprising phosphodiesterase inhibitors for the treatment of sexual dysfunction"  and held that the patent had been infringed,  His judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Lewison, Kitchin and Floyd) in   Actavis Group PTC EHF and another v Teva UK Ltd and others   [2017] EWCA Civ 1671, 159 BMLR 108, (2018) 159 BMLR 108, [2018] RPC 7 (1 Nov 2017) on the ground that the claims relied upon had been obvious.  The patentee a...