NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Jacon)  Tehrani v Bonaduz AR and others [2022] EWHC 1031 (IPEC) (18 Feb 2022) S.75 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 provides: "In any proceedings before the court or the comptroller in which the validity of a patent may be put in issue the court or, as the case may be, the comptroller may, subject to section 76 below, allow the proprietor of the patent to amend the specification of the patent in such manner, and subject to such terms as to advertising the proposed amendment and as to costs, expenses or otherwise, as the court or comptroller thinks fit." In  Tehrani v Bonaduz AR and others [2022] EWHC 1031 (IPEC) (18 Feb 2022),  the patentee sought to change the words "for a next breath of the patient" to "for the next breath of the patient" in one of the claims and consequential amendments of the body of the specification.  The problem with the application is that it was sought after the court...

  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...

This was an appeal against the following judgments of Mr Justice Floyd: Nokia GmbH v Ipcom GmbH & Co KG [2009] EWHC 3482 (Pat) (18 Jan 2010) ("the main judgment"); [2009] EWHC 3034 (Pat) (20 Nov 2009) ("the first amendment judgment"); and [2010] EWHC 789 (Pat) (31 March 2009) ("the second amendment judgment"). The litigation concerned two patents which the trial judge described as follows: "The two patents relate to cellular mobile phone technology. Broadly speaking, the first of the patents, European Patent (UK) No. 540 808 ("808"), is concerned with the way in which the mobile phone synchronises itself with the transmissions it receives from the base station. The second of the patents, European Patent (UK) No. 1 186 189 ("189"), is concerned with management of the right of the mobile phone to connect to the network." In the appeal, Lord Justice Jacob referred to 808 as the "synch patent" and 189 as the "...