Posts

Showing posts with the label Part 24

Copyright - Lish v The Northern Block Ltd

Image
Saints Cyril and Methodius, Creators of the Glagolitic Alphabet, Forerunner of Cyrillic Author Z Zograf  Public Domain  Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Chancery Division (David Stone)  Lish v The Northern Block Ltd and Another [2025] EWHC 2172 (Ch) (22 Aug 2025) This was an application by the defendants, The Northern Block Ltd.  and Jonathan Hill, its director and shareholder, for the striking out and/or summary judgment in claims by Mariya Vasilyevna Lish for breach of contract, breach of obligations following acceptance of a CPR Part 36 offer and copyright infringement.  The application was heard by Mr David Stone sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 15 July 2025. He delivered judgment in  Lish v The Northern Block Ltd and Another  [2025] EWHC 2172 (Ch) on 22 Aug 2025.  He dismissed the application for summary judgment but allowed the strikeout applications.  The Background Northern Block is a type foundry which su...

Employees' Inventions: Parsons v Convatec Ltd.

Image
Author Judicial Office UK Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Zacaroli) Parsons v Convatec Lt d [2023] EWHC 1535 (Pat) (26 June 2023) This was an application by an employer to strike out or summarily dismiss part of its employee's claim for compensation under s.40 of the Patents Act 1977.  S.7 (2) of the Patents Act 1977 states that a patent for an invention may be granted primarily to the inventor except where a rule of law or contract entitles someone else to claim the invention.  One such exception is provided by s.39  which entitles employers to claim their employees' inventions in certain circumstances.  Most employees who are expected to invent something in the course of their employment enjoy generous salaries and benefits but there are some inventions that are so valuable to the employer that it is just to reward the employee with something extra.  S.40 makes provision for such re...

Practice: Filtco Inc v Haugh

I should first like to wish my readers a happy New Year. Good riddance to the old one which was awful. After the emergency budget in June virtually every SME in England seemed to go to earth. The explanation is not hard to fathom. Litigation is funded largely on tick. So, too, is new product design and development. With the banks rebuilding their balance sheets and making only the payments that they really have to make, such as bonuses to their executives and traders, frivolous matters such as branding and innovation just have to wait. A sign of the times is that Judge Birss's spanking new intellectual property court is posting reports of decisions on paper like the Media CAT cases or case management conferences such as Westwood v Knight. The first case of 2011 is much more exciting. A summary judgment application would you believe. In Fitco Inc. v Haugh [2011] EWPCC 1 (6 Jan 2011) a former director of a company that had made its peace with the claimants, was sued for join...