NIPC Law

Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Arnold, Lady Justice Elizabeth Laing and Lord Justice Warby) Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co. Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 532 (8 May 2026) This was an appeal by Bargain Busting Ltd ("BBL") against an interim injunction restraining threats of trade mark infringement proceedings granted by Mr Justice Miles (as he then was) on 27 May 2025 on the application of Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd ("SKE") for the reasons he gave in  Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 1239 (Ch) (21 May 2025).  I discussed that judgment in  Threats Actions - Bargain Busting v Shenzhen Technology   on 29 May 2925. Background The claimant, BBL was the registered proprietor of UK trade marks UK00003235344  ("344") and UK00003534551  ("551"), which the defendant, SKE, challenged on the grounds of non-use and invalidity. BBL also applied to register CRYSTAL BAR as a trade mark under ...

  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Abbott Laboratories Ltd v Dexcom In c. [2021] EWHC 2246 (Pat) (6 Aug 2021) This was an application for an order to expedite the trial of an action that Abbott Laboratories Ltd. ("Abbott") had begun 2 days earlier against Dexcom Inc ("Dexcom") for the revocation of 4 of Dexcom Inc's European patents. The reason for the action and application is that Dexcom had brought proceedings for the infringement of those patents in Germany.  The trials of those actions were likely to take place between early March and the end of April 2022. In Germany, unlike the United Kingdom, it is not possible to challenge the validity of a patent in infringement proceedings.  Alleged infringers who wish to challenge the validity of the patent they are alleged to have infringed must bring opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office under art 99 of the European Patent Convention or start separate revocation proceedings in Germany....

Houses of Parliament Source Wikipedia Jane Lambert The action arising from groundless threats has been one of the most perplexing features of our  intellectual property law  both for foreign owners of IPR in this country and their legal advisors (see Prince Plc v Prince Sports Group Inc [1998] FSR 21) and even non-specialist lawyers in the United Kingdom (see Brain v Ingeledew Brown Benson and Garrett and another  [1996] FSR 341). Under s.70 of the Patents Act 1977  and similar provisions in other IP legislation, a letter threatening proceedings that would be quite acceptable in most countries and even in the UK in respect of most other causes of action can land the lawyer or attorney who wrote it, and the client on whose behalf the letter was written, in a whole heap of trouble that sometimes results in an infringer getting away with his or her wrongdoing. S.70 (1) provides: "Where a person (whether or not the proprietor of, or entitled ...