NIPC Law

Chongqing Municipal People's Auditorium Author Iswzo   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Jackson, Arnold and Birss)  Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd and another v ZTE Corporation and other s [2025] EWCA Civ 1383 (31 Oct 2025) This was an appeal by ZTE Corporation and others ("ZTE") against the decision of Mr Justice Mellor in  Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Another v ZTE Corporation and others [2025] EWHC 1432 (Pat) (25 June 2025) to grant Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd ("Samsung"), the following interim declarations: "1. ZTE are in breach of their obligations of good faith under clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy. 2. A willing licensor in the position of ZTE, and in light of the undertaking given by Samsung, would enter into the interim cross-licence with Samsung on terms and including the sum to be paid by Samsung by way of royalty in respect of the interim licence period...

The Rolls Building Author Judicial Office Licence CC BY-SA 4. 0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Last week I chaired 4 of the 5 daily sessions of Informa's Cambridge IP "Winter School"  and delivered 3 of the talks. The title of the last of those talks (which was also the last talk of the Winter School) was IP Litigation in England and Wale s. I offered that talk because not all the attendees in previous years' summer schools had been legally qualified and many of those who were so qualified were new to IP.  It seemed to me that there was not much point in discussing the complexities of IP litigation without a grounding in the basics. IP litigation differs from other types of civil litigation in many ways.  It has its own rules and practice direction.  Much IP business is conducted in specialist courts and all of the rest are in a specialist list in the Chancery Division.  IP litigation can be particularly expensive which is why threats to br...

Manchester Civil Justice Centre Author Skip88 Licence  Copyright waived by the author Source  Wikipedia Jane Lambert According to TaylorWessing's Patent Map , England and Wales remains the most expensive country in Europe in which to contest a patent action. The European Patent Office reports that the UK lay 9th in the number of European patent applications that were filed in 2017 trailing not just the USA, Japan, China and Germany which are considerably bigger in population and GDP than the UK but France, South Korea, Switzerland and the Netherlands that are the same size or smaller (see  European patent filings per country of origin ). It seems likely that the UK's relatively lacklustre performance in the number of European patent applications is connected to the high cost of enforcement.  I have plenty of anecdotal evidence from my practice, patent clinics and inventors' clubs to support that contention. One of the reason...

Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Arnold):  Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) and another v Yeda Research And Development Company Ltd [2017] EWHC 2629 (Pat) (26 Oct 2017) On Wednesday, 28 Feb 2018 I gave a talk to the C5 Pharma and Patent Litigation Conference   at the Radisson Blu Hotel in Amsterdam. Mine was one of three talks on the topic Infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents.  I discussed the law of England in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and others  [2017] UKSC 48, [2017] Bus LR 1731 while  Paul Reeskamp  and Philipp Cepl , who practise in the Netherlands and Germany, considered the topic in the light of the developing case law in their jurisdictions. I had previously written about the Supreme Court's judgment in  The Supreme Court's Judgment in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and Others: how to understand it and why it is important   13 July 2017. Possibly because Lord Ne...

Jane Lambert Martin Howe QC   Ahmet Erol v Sumaira Javaid   BL O/253/17 12 June 2017 The Registered Designs Act 1949  was passed the same year as the Patents Act 1949. S.85 (2)  of the Patents Act 1949 established a Patents Appeal Tribunal ("PAT") which heard appeals from hearing officers. There was a corresponding provision under s.28  of the Registered Designs Act 1949 which established a Registered Designs Appeal Tribunal ("RDAT"). The PAT was abolished by the Patents Act 1977 but the RDAT trundled on until the Intellectual Property Act 2014 came into force (see Jane Lambert  How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 changes British Registered Design Law   19 June 2014 JD Supra). S.10 (4) of that Act repealed s.28 of the Registered Designs Act 1949 and with it the RDAT.  S.10 (2) of the 2014 Act inserted new sections 27A and 27B into the 1949 Act which gave those who wished to appeal against a decision of a hearing o...

When I reviewd the new Patent Court Guide on 6 Nov   I pointed out that it did not have a specimen order.    That has now been corrected and the complete guide appears in its full glory at  http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/files/Patents_Court_Guide_as_revised_on_18_November_2008.pdf .   However, the old one is still on the Courts Service website. So beware.