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...

There are often a lot of cases brought by the fashion trade or toy or novelty manufacturers in the run up to Christmas. There don't seem to have been all that many this year judging by the Chancery Division cause list and the Patent Court and Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ( "IPEC" ) diaries. However, there has been a case about ice cream or rather ice cream vans. In Whitby Specialist Vehicles Ltd. v Yorkshire v Yorkshire Specialist Vehicles Ltd   [2014] EWHC 4242 (Pat) the biggest manufacturer of ice cream vans in the UK sued one of its competitors or unregistered Community design, design right and trade mark infringement. The trial took place in the Patents Court on the 10, 12-14, 20 Nov 2014 and judgment was delivered on the 17 Dec 2014. Usually actions of this kind proceed in IPEC where trials are limited to two days and costs are capped at £50,000 for the trial on liability and £25,000 for ...

As almost everyone on the planet will have heard by now, Apple Inc . won a convincing victory over Samsung Electronics Ltd . and its American subsidiaries in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on the 24 Aug 2012.  The claim was for the infringement of various US "utility" and "design patents" belonging to Apple and "dilution" and infringement of Apple's "trade dress" - causes of action that appear to be roughly equivalent to patent and registered design infringement and passing off in the UK and most other common law countries.   Samsung counterclaimed for the revocation of Apple's patents and damages and other relief for the infringement of its own patents.  As the 7th amendment to the US constitution guarantees trial by jury for claims over US$20, the claim and counterclaim came before a jury.  In its 20 page verdict that jury found for Apple on just about every issue and awarded Apple US$1,049,343,540 in da...