NIPC Law

Jane Lambert   Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property (Sir Colin Birss, Chancellor) QMC Instruments Ltd v Celtic Terahertz Technology Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 3485 (IPEC) (26 Nov 2025) This was a dispute between two university spin-off companies, which were incorporated to exploit the work of Professor Peter Ade .  Professor Ade carried out research into the far-infrared spectrum first at  Queen Mary College (now Queen Mary University London)  until 2001 and afterwards at Cardiff University . While at Queen Mary, he helped to set up QMC Instruments Ltd.  ("QMCIL") to sell far-infrared detectors and multimesh filters, some of which he had designed.  Some years later, Professor Ade and colleagues who had followed him to Cardiff established Celtic Terahertz Technology Ltd  ("CTT"). QMCIL Queen Mary College sold QMCILto investors in 1991 and warranted that the company was the sole beneficial owner of all the IP relatin...

Author J onas Magnus Lystad   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0    Source Wikipedia Commons   Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Iain Purvis KC) Unicorn Studio Inc v Veronese SpAS    [2024] EWHC 1098 (Ch) (21 June 2024) This appeal highlights the importance of timely applications under CPR52.19 (4)  in appeals to the Court from the Trade Marks Registry. A party who wishes to appeal against a decision of a hearing officer has the choice under s.76 (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 of appealing to the Appointed Person or the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice.  S.77 (1) defines an "Appointed Person" as a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor to hear appeals under the Trade Marks Act 1994.  Appointed persons tend to be senior members of the Intellectual Property Bar, solicitors specializing in that area of the law or distinguished academic lawyers. There are advantages and disadvantages of appealing to the Appointed Person rather than the Court....

Kidney Stone Author Robert R Wal Licence Public Domain     Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Charlotte May KC)  Well Lead Medical Co Ltd v CJ Medical Ltd [2024] EWHC 951 (IPEC) (26 April 2024) This was an application by the claimant in a patent infringement action for an interim injunction  to restrain the marketing and supply in the United Kingdom of a  ureteral access sheath ( UAS ) under CPR 25.1 (1) (a).  The claimant sought that application on the ground that such marketing and sales would infringe EP (UK) 3 760 143 B1  for a suction evacuation device that is used to retrieve stones from a patient's body.  The application was heard by Charlotte May KC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 10 April 2024. By para [100] of her judgment in Well Lead Medical Co Ltd v CJ Medical Ltd [2024] EWHC 951 (IPEC) (26 April 2024), Miss May dismissed the application. Ownership of the  Patent According to the speci...

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...

Author DebashisM   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Pat Treacy) Photobooth Props Ltd and another v NEPBH Ltd and others   [2023] EWHC 766 (IPEC) 25 April 2023 This was an application by the claimant for an order that unless the defendants make an interim payment by 16:00 on the 7th day from the date of the order, the defence of all defendants will be struck out. The obligation on the defendants to make an interim payment was an order by Ms Pat Treacy sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court at a case management conference on 2 Feb 2023. The application for the unless order was also made to Ms Treacy who decided it without a hearing on 25 April 2023 (see  Photobooth Props Ltd and another v NEPBH Ltd and others [2023] EWHC 755 (IPEC) (25 April 2023)). Importance of this Case The reason for discussing this case is that interim costs orders are rare in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Cour...

Author Pierre Adolphe Valett e   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Nicholas Caddick KC)  Price and others v Flitcraft Ltd and other s [2023] EWHC 695 (Pat) (3 April 2023) I discussed Nicholas Caddick KC's judgment in  Price and others v Flitcraft Ltd and other s [2022] EWHC 3381 (Pat) (20 Dec 2022) in Patents, Copyright and Passing off - Price v Flitcraft Lt d on 16 Jan 2022 and  A Patent Trial in Manchester at Last - Price v Flitcraft Lt d   in IP Northwest on 17 Jan 2023,  This was an action for patent and copyright infringement and passing off.  The first claimant, Philip Price, did not win on anything but the second claimant, Supawall Ltd, did have some success with the patent claim though not with passing off.  As it was not obvious which party was the overall winner a further hearing took place on  16 March 2023 to decide which of those parties should pay which costs.  The judgment was handed down on 3 April 2023 ( Price and others v F...

C ontains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 . Jane Lambert The CEO of the Intellectual Property Office, who is known as "the registrar" in trade mark proceedings pursuant to s.62 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, exercises judicial as well as executive functions.  He or she adjudicates disputes between applicants for trade marks and examiners known as ex parte proceedings. The registrar also decides disputes between applicants or registered proprietors and third parties that are known as  inter pates proceedings". The registrar's judicial functions are performed on his or her behalf by officials known as "hearing officers" though they are not mentioned in the legislation.  I discussed ex parte hearings in If the examiner says "no" - ex parte hearings in the Trade Marks Registry   in NIPC London on 10 Aug 2015 and inter partes hearings in Oppositions in the IPO's Trade Mark Registry   in the same publicati...