NIPC Law

A Person using a Juul Device Author Sarah Johnson   Licence CC BY 2,0   Source Wikipedia Juul   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mann)  Juul Labs, Inc and others v MFP Enterprises Ltd (t/a 'Smoke Nation' and others) [2020] EWHC 3380 (Pat) (10 Dec 2020) This was an application for summary as well as default judgment against defendants that had not acknowledged service of the claim form or particulars of claim .  Such applications are rare because CPR 24.4 (1) prohibits a claimant from applying for summary judgment until the defendant against whom the application is made has filed an acknowledgement of service or a defence unless the court has given permission or a practice direction provides otherwise. The circumstances in which a court may give permission were considered by Mr Justice Bryan in The European Union and another v The Syrian Arab Republic [2018] EWHC 1712 (Comm) (29 June 2018) and Mr Justice Hensaw in DVB Bank SE v Vega Marine Ltd a...

Photo Michael Reeve Creative Commons Licence Jane Lambert On 16 June 2020 the Intellectual Property Office updated its Guidance on IP crime and enforcement for business .  Most of the Guidance in three attachments: IP crime and enforcement for businesses   The UK UP Crime Group , and  Record of damages awarded in IPEC SCT cases 1 April 2018 - 31 March 2019 "IPEC SCT" stands for "Intellectual Property Enterprise Court Small Claims Track. This is a tribunal for IP claims under £10,000 other than those involving patents, registered and registered Community designs, plant varieties and semiconductor topographies.   I have discussed this jurisdiction in Small IP Claims   and the articles linked to that page. The IP crime and enforcement for businesses attachment contains two videos.  One is entitled I P Rights Infringement Overview  and the other is How do I avoid infringing IP rights at work?    There are summa...

This is not something they teach in law schools. Much less is it advertised to clients. But in my experience and I daresay that of most other intellectual property practitioners many if not most disputes are resolved on procedural points rather than lofty principles of substantive law. Judge Birss QC's decision in Wuxi Suntech Power Co. Ltd. v Tittmann Solar GmbH [2011] EWPCC 17 (3 May 2011) is a case in point. This was an application under CPR 13.3 (1) to set aside or vary a default judgment entered by His Hon. Judge Fysh QC on 5 Aug 2010. That rule confers a discretion upon the court to set aside a default judgment if "the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim" or it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why the judgment should be set aside or varied or the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim. CPR 13.3 (2) further provides that in exercising its discretion "the matters to which the court must have re...

I am grateful to Mr John Rogers for bringing Media CAT Ltd. v Billington [2010] EWPCC 18 (17 Dec 2010) to my attention. It appears that Judge Birss QC and his clerk reviewed all the cases in his list and found 13 more that had been brought by Media CAT in September and October plus another 14 in November. All involve similar issues to the cases I mentioned in my case note of 12 Dec 2010. Many of them consist only of a claim form and particulars of claim . At least one defendant seems not to be without a response pack. The judge has listed all those cases for directions at a hearing to take place on 17 Jan 2011 of his own motion under CPR 3.3 (1) and (4). II should be interested to know what Media CAT's solicitors have to say about it. The Bar provides pro bono advice and representation through the Bar Pro Bono Unit . Anyone affected should have a word with his local CAB, law centre or MP first. I am sure most IP chambers would be glad to take referrals from the Unit. We certa...

I n Media C.A.T. Ltd. v A and others [2010] EWPCC 17, His Honour Judge Birss QC had 8 requests for judgment. The particulars of claim in each case alleged that: "The defendant, someone authorised by him to use his internet connection, or someone who gained access to the defendant's internet connection due to the router to that connections having no or no adequate security was at all material times a user of the peer-to-peer file sharing software known as BitTorrent 6.1.2 which allows the user to share digital media content files on a network with other users." The relief sought in the requests for judgment included "a permanent injunction pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court; ordering the defendant to take reasonable steps to safeguard their internet connection being used, either through the defendant's personal computer and/or third parties taking advantage of the defendant's unsecured wireless connection to repeat the infringement of the clai...