Posts

Showing posts with the label Judge Hacon

Copyright - Edozo Ltd v Valos (UK) Ltd,

Image
The Rolls Building , L ocation of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court Author Muhammad Karns, Judicial Office X feed Licence CC BY-SA 4.0 Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Edozo Ltd v Valos (UK) Ltd [2026] EWHC 93 (IPEC) (21 Jan 2026) This was an application by the claimant to strike out parts of the defendant's defence and counterclaim. The claimant had brought proceedings for a declaration of non-infringement of copyright, while the defendant counterclaimed for relief from infringement.     The claimant's application came before His Honour Judge Hacon on 15 Jan 2026.  By para [61] of his judgment in  Edozo Ltd v Valos (UK) Ltd [2026] EWHC 93 (IPEC) (21 Jan 2026), His Honour acceded to the application. The Parties The claimant was Edozo Ltd ( "Edozo" ) and the defendant was Valos (UK) Ltd . (" Valos ").  The judge described Edozo and Valos as "competitors in a market which...

Registered Designs - The Appeal in Marks and Spencer Plc v Aldi Stores Ltd

Image
Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justice Lewison, Moylan and Arnold) Marks and Spencer PLC v Aldi Stores Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 178 (27 Feb 2024) This was an appeal against the relief granted to Marks and Spencer Plc ("M&S") by His Honour Judge Hacon for infringement of the above-registered designs by Aldi Stores Ltd. ("Aldi") for the reasons set out in   Marks and Spencer Plc v Aldi Stores Ltd . [2023]EWHC 178 (IPEC) 31 Jan 2023 which I discussed in  Registered Designs - Marks and Spencer Plc v Aldi Stores Ltd . on 20 Feb 2023.  Aldi appealed on 7 grounds with the permission of Judge Hacom and Lord Justice Arnold while M&S raised another in a respondent's notice.  The appeal came before Lord Justices Lewison, Moylan and Arnold on 23 Jan 2024 who handed down judgment on 27 Feb 2024.   By para [64] of his judgment in  Marks and Spencer PLC v Aldi Stores Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 178., Lord Justice Arnold dismissed the appeal.  Lord Justic...

Lenovo Appeal - Interdigital Technology Corporation v Lenovo Group

Image
Author N509FZ   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Birss and Waeby and Lady Justice Falk)  Interdigital Technology Corporation and others v Lenovo Group Ltd and others [2023] EWCA Civ 34 (19 Jan 2023) This was an appeal by the Lenovo Group Ltd. against Judge Hacon's judgment that    European patent (UK) 2 485 558 Method and apparatus for providing and utilizing a non-contention-based channel in a wireless communication system  was valid and essential to ETSI's 4G/LTE standard  and that it had been infringed (see Interdigital Technology Corporation and another v Lenovo Group Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2152 (Pat) (29 July 2021)).  Judge Hacon's judgment was one of the cases I discussed in  FRAND - The InterDigital v Lenovo Litigation   on 3 May 2021. In that article, I referred to that case as "Technical Trial A".   Judge Hacon's Judgment The appeal was hear...

Appeal - Nokia Technologies and another v Oneplus Technologies and others

Image
Great Hall of the People Chongqing Author flyerletian Licence  CCO 1.0   Soutce Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Peter Jackson, Arnold and Phillips) Nokia Technologies OY and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd and others [2022] EWCA Civ 947 (11 July 2022) This was an appeal from the judgment of HH Judge Hacon sitting as a judge of the High Court in  Nokia Technologies OY and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd and other s (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 2952 (Pat) (4 Nov 2021) which I discussed in  FRAND - Nokia Technologies v Oneplus Technology   on 25 April 2022.  Readers will recall that the learned judge refused an application to set aside service of patent infringement proceedings on defendants that had been incorporated in China and to stay the action against the defendants that had been incorporated here to abide the outcome of proceedings in China to determine the terms of a FRAND licence for the...

The Vestel Appeal: Vestel Elektronik v Access Advance

Image
Author Wags05  Licence Copyright waived by the Author   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Nugee and Birss and Lady Justice Laing)  Vestel Elektronik Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. and another v Access Advance LLC and another [2021] (26 March 2021) [2021] WLR(D) 178, [2021] EWCA Civ 440 Many of the tellies that are sold in this country under such brands as Toshiba, Hitachi, Telefunken and Panasonic are actually made in Turkey by  Vestel Elektronik Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S . and distributed by the Vestel group's British company Vestel UK Ltd.  In this article, "Vestel" refers to both Vestel companies.  Access Advance LLC  administers the HEVC patent pool.  HEVC is a video compression technology which is defined by the International Telecommunication Union H.265 recommendation. One of the members of that pool is Koninklijke Philips NV.  Vestel's Claim Vestel applied to Access Advance for a licence to use Philips's patents under Acces...

The Bentley Appeal: Bentley Motors Limited v Bentley 1962 Limited and another

Image
Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Lewison and Arnold and Mr Justice Marcus Smith) Bentley Motors Limited v Bentley 1962 Limited and another [2020] EWCA Civ 1726 (16 Dec2020) This was an appeal by Bentley Motors Limited against Judge Hacon's decision in Bentley 1962 Ltd and another v Bentley Motors Ltd [2019] EWHC 2925 (Ch) (1 Nov 2019) which I discussed in Trade Marks - Bentley 1962 Ltd and another v Bentley Motors Ltd.   on 3 Nov 2019.  In that decision, the learned judge held that Bentley Motors had infringed trade mark numbers  1180215 ,    2177779A  and  2505233  by marketing and distributing clothing and headgear with the word "BENTLEY" in combination with the motor company's winged "B" emblem. The above picture is an example of the use of the combination to which the claimants objected. Grounds of Appeal Bentley Motors' grounds of appeal were as follows.  First, the judge had been wrong to hold that the average consumer of...