NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr David Stone)  Lutec (UK) Ltd and others v Cascade Holdings Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 1907 (Pat) (09 July 2021) This case started as an action for the infringement of two registered Community designs , namely 000540927-0001 and  000540927-0002 . Before the action came on for trial, the transition or implementation period provided by art 126 of the agreement by which the UK withdraw from the EU expired.   The Senior Courts of England and Wales ceased to be Community design courts and registered Community designs ceased to apply to the UK.  Art 54 (1) (b) of that agreement provided for holders of registered Community designs to be awarded equivalent registered designs in the UK (see Jane Lambert  How Brexit has changed IP Law   17 Jan 2021 NIPC Brexit and Jane Lambert IP after Brexit   26 Jan 2021 Slideshare). Those registered designs are for "Interior lights, Exterior lights...

The Intellectual Property Office Crown Copyright Reproduced with kind permission of the IPO Jane Lambert On 16 Dec 2015 the President of the European Parliament and the President of the European Council signed  Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 336, 23.12.2015, p. 1–26 ("the directive").  Art 55 of the directive repeals  Directive 2008/95/EC  with effect from 15 Jan 2019 while art 54 requires member states including the UK to transpose arts 3 to 6, 8 to 14, 16, 17 and 18, 22 to 39, 41 and 43 to 50 into their laws by 14 January 2019. The legislation that implements art 54 in the United Kingdom is a statutory instrument, namely The Trade Marks Regulations 2018 (SI 2018 No 825 ). These regulations were made on 9 July 2018 and come into force on 14 Jan 2019. There are 54 of them arrange...

In  Medimmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd and Another [2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat) (05 July 2011), Mr. Justice Arnold dismissed a claim for infringement of    European Patents (UK) numbers. 0,774,511 and 2,055,777 by selling a product called ranibizumab which is used for the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration of the eye on the grounds that the patents were invalid for obviousness and that even if the claims relied upon were valid the process used by the defendants to make the product did not infringe.   In  Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd v Medimmune Ltd and Another [2012] EWHC 181 (Pat) (10 Feb 2012) the same judge declared that a supplementary protection certificate granted in respect of European patent number 2,055,777 was invalid not only in the light of his earlier finding but because the certificate was was granted in respect of a product that had not been identified in the wording of the relevant claim as a product deriving ...