NIPC Law

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...

Horse's Eye Author  Waugsberg   Licence   CC BY-SA 3.0   Sourc e  Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Recorder Amanda Michaels) E quisafety Ltd v Battle, Hayward and Bower Ltd     2023] EWHC 1821 (IPEC) (21 July 2023) and  Equisafety Ltd v Battle, Hayward and Bower Ltd and another [2024] EWHC 283 (IPEC) (15 Feb 2024) I n  Practice - Lufthansa Technik AG v Panasonic Avionics Corporation  on 10 Nov 2023 I said that proceedings in the Chancery Division take place in two stages. First, there is a trial to determine whether the defendant is liable to the claimant, If the court finds that the defendant is liable it can order an account of profits or an inquiry as to damages. An account of profits is a determination of the profits that the defendant has gained from his or her wrongdoing followed by an order for him or her to pay those profits to the claimant. An inquiry as to damages is a determ...

  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...

Author EvaK   Licence CC BY-SA 2.5   Source Wikipedia Harwich Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, Small Claims Track (HH Judge Hacon)  Evans v Trebuchet Design Ltd and another   [2020] EWHC 3037 (IPEC) (20 Oct 2020) This was an application by the defendants to an action for copyright and database right infringement and breach of contract to strike out the claim on the ground that the dispute had been compromised.  Although the case was decided in the small claims track of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, it concerned important matters of principle including the rule in Henderson v Henderson    (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313, [1843] UKPC 6, the formation of contracts and costs in the small claims track. The importance of the case is signified by the fact that it was argued before the Enterprise Judge by patent counsel and a senior solicitor and trade mark attorney advocate whose public-spirit and oral and written advocacy were...

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Judge Melissa Clarke)  Thomas v Luv One Luv All Promotions Ltd and another [2020] EWHC 1565 (IPEC) (17 June 2020) This was an application to strike out part of the defence to the claimant's action for passing off and transfer or cancellation of the second defendant's trade mark registration on grounds of cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel, the principle in Henderson v Henderson, and abuse of process or, alternatively, summary judgment under Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules.  The application was issued on 28 Feb 2010 which was a few days before the case management conference of 6 March 2020 at which  several issues were ordered to be tried .  The application came on before Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke who considered it on paper at the parties' request. The Facts Between 1986 and 2016 the claimant and the second defendant had been members of a band called LOVE INJECTION or LUV ...

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 ...