NIPC Law

Author Judicial Office UK Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Zacaroli) Parsons v Convatec Lt d [2023] EWHC 1535 (Pat) (26 June 2023) This was an application by an employer to strike out or summarily dismiss part of its employee's claim for compensation under s.40 of the Patents Act 1977.  S.7 (2) of the Patents Act 1977 states that a patent for an invention may be granted primarily to the inventor except where a rule of law or contract entitles someone else to claim the invention.  One such exception is provided by s.39  which entitles employers to claim their employees' inventions in certain circumstances.  Most employees who are expected to invent something in the course of their employment enjoy generous salaries and benefits but there are some inventions that are so valuable to the employer that it is just to reward the employee with something extra.  S.40 makes provision for such re...

  Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Iain Purvis QC) Semtech Corporation and others v Lacuna Space Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1143 (Pat) (5 May 2021) This was a challenge to the court's jurisdiction by two former employees of the third claimant under art 22.1 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1–32 ("the Brussels Recast Regulation) .  That article provides that an employer may bring proceedings against its employee only in the courts of the Member State in which the employee is domiciled.  The application came on before Mr Iain Purvis QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 30 April 2021.  At para [75] of his judgment in  S emtech Corporation and others v Lacuna Space Ltd and other s [2021] EWHC 1143 (Pat) (5 May 2021), the learned deputy judge found that he had...

Author Evan-Amos   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikipedia Hard disk drive Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Penhallurick v MD5 Ltd [2021] EWHC 293 (IPEC) (15 Febr 2021) This was a dispute between MD5 Ltd., a leading digital forensics company, and Michael Penhallurick, its former employee, over ownership of the copyrights in 8 works that relate to a technique called virtual forensic computing ("VFC").  The action was brought by Mr Penhallurick, the author of those works. He claimed copyright in the works and alleged that they had been infringed by MD5. MD5, for its part, claimed to own the copyrights and counterclaimed for copyright infringement and breach of contract.  Copyright in Works created by Employees Questions on who owns the copyright in literary and artistic works created by employees are asked frequently in my IP clinics and occasionally in formal instructions even though they rarely get as far as trial....

Colworth House, Unilever's Research and Development Facility Author  Lecomte99     Copyright waived by the author     Source Wikipedia Colworth House Jane Lambert Supreme Court (Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lady Black and Lord Kitchin) Shanks v Unilever Plc   [2019] UKSC 45 (23 Oct 2019) Nowadays most commercially successful inventions in the United Kingdom are made by scientists, engineers or other technically qualified people working for companies, research institutes or universities at places like Colworth House in Bedfordshire.  Most of those scientists, engineers and technicians are paid very well for their work and many of them receive side benefits like company cars, private health insurance and stock options. Employees' Inventions It is for that reason that s.39 (1) of the Patents Acr 1977 provides: "Notwithstanding anything in any rule of law, an invention made by an employee shall, as between him and h...

Jane Lambert Bhayani and Another v Taylor Bracewell LLP [2016] EWHC 3360 (IPEC) (22 Dec 2016) In  Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc, and Others ,  [1990] 1 WLR 491, [1990] RPC 341, [1990] 1 All ER 873, [1990] WLR 491, [1990] UKHL 12 discussed the elements of an action for passing off. The first of those elements was  "a goodwill or reputation attached to the goods or services which he supplies in the mind of the purchasing public by association with the identifying "get-up" (whether it consists simply of a brand name or a trade description, or the individual features of labelling or packaging) under which his particular goods or services are offered to the public, such that the get-up is recognised by the public as distinctive specifically of the plaintiff's goods or services." His Honour Judge Hacon considered that element in the above-mentioned case .  This was an application by Taylor Bracewell LLP for summary judgment ...