NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Court of Appea l (Lords Justices Coulson, Arnold and Warby) AstraZeneca AB and another v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 480 (16 April 2025) This was an appeal against Michael Tappin KC's refusal in  AstraZeneca AB and another v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd (Re Interim Injunction Application) [2025] EWHC 748 (Pat) (28 March 2025)   to grant AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca UK Ltd. an interim injunction to restrain Gelnmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd. from selling a product containing dapagliflozin pending a hearing on the form of order following a trial to determine the validity of the first claimant's supplemental protection certificates  for dapagliflozin and a combination of dapagliflozin and metformin.  The appeal was heard by Lords Justices Coulson, Arnold and Warby on 9 April 2025.  At the end of the hearing, the Lords Justices announced that they would allow AstraZeneca's appeal.  Lord Justice Arno...

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...

Author   Fg2   Licence Copyright waived by the author   Jane Lamber t Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Cloud Cycle Ltd v Verifi LLC and another   [2024] EWHC 233 (IPEC) (7 Feb 2024) In this action and counterclaim Cloud Cycle Ltd ("CCL") is suing Verifi LLC ("Verifi") and GCP Applied Technologies (UK) Limited ("GCP") for a declaration of non-infringement of European Patent (UK) No. 1 720 689  ("the patent") and Verifi and GCP are counterclaiming for infringement of the patent.  Verifi and GCP applied for an interim injunction to restrain CCL from dealing with new customers in an allegedly infringing system for ascertaining the consistency of concrete known as "slump".  CCL responded with an application for summary judgment on its claim and dismissal of the counterclaim.  Both applications came on before His Honour Judge Hacon on 31 Jan 2024.  By para [20] of his judgment in  Cloud Cycle Ltd v Verif...

Author Amir.ahrls   Licence CCO 1.0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Roth) Novartis AF and another v Reva UK Ltd and others   [2022] WLR(D) 306, [2022] EWHC 959 (Ch) Can an applicant for a patent or other intellectual property right seek an interim injunction to restrain an act that would infringe such right in the interval between the removal of the last objection to the granting of the right and the date of grant?  The right to damages for infringing acts is backdated to the publication of the application by s.69 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 but s.69 (2) (a) entitles an applicant to bring proceedings by virtue of this section in respect of any act only after the patent has been granted.  S.9 (3) (a) of the Trade Marks Act 1949  provides that no infringement proceedings may be begun before the date on which the trade mark is in fact registered.  S.7A (6) of the Registered Designs Act 1949 makes clear that no proce...

Author Jules Gagnage   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court (Sir Anthony Mann) Fiberweb Geosynthetics Ltd v Geofabrics Ltd [2021] EWHC 1996 (Pat) (16 July 2021) Everyone is familiar with interim injunctions.  These are orders to do or, more likely, refrain from doing something until trial or further order.  They are intended to protect an intellectual property or other rights owner from irreparable harm between the issue of proceedings and trial.  They are awarded in exchange for a promise by the person seeking the injunction to pay damages to the injuncted party should the court subsequently decide that the injunction should never have been granted. But what about the opposite case where a party that is already subject to an injunction wants to make or sell a product that may or may not infringe an intellectual property right for which a final injunction has been granted and thus breach such injunction pending the trial...

Ocado Van Author  Tomjhpage   Licence  CC BY-SA 4.0   Source    Wikimedia   J ane Lambert Court of Appeal (Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Nugee) AutoStore Technology AS v Ocado Group Plc and other [ 2021] EWCA Civ 1003 (7 July 2021) This was an appeal by Ocado Plc, its subsidiaries and Tharsus Group Ltd from the decision of Judge Hacon in  Autostore Technology AS v Ocado Group Plc and others [2021] EWHC 1614 (Pat) (11 June 2021) not to restrain AutoStore Technology AS from disclosing to the US International Trade Commission a document marked "CONFIDENTIAL & WITHOUT PREJUDICE PROVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS ONLY." I discussed Judge Hacon's decision in  Interim Injunctions - AutoStore Technology AS v Ocado Group Plc   on 14 July 2021,  I explained the reason for the dispute as follows: "In the proceedings before the Commission, AutoSrore alleged that Ocado had infringed several ...

Author  dozenist   Licence CC BY-SA 2,5   Source Wikimedia Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr James Mellor QC)  C.T. Dent Ltd v Atias and another [2020] EWHC 2720 (Ch) (14 Oct  2020)   This was an application for interim injunctive relief in an action for breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful interference with property, infringement of copyright, infringement of the sui generis database right and misuse of confidential information. The claimant was CT Dent Ltd  ("Dent"), a dental scanning company. The defendants were Kfir Yizhaq Atias ("Mr Atias") a former director of Dent and Dental Scan Ltd ("Scan"), a company that Mr Atias founded on 9 Sept 2020. The application came on before Mr James Mellor QC sitting as a judge of the High Court on 2 Oct 2020, He granted injunctions on 5 Oct 2020 and gave his reasons in  C.T. Dent Ltd v Atias and another [2020] EWHC 2720 (Ch)  on14 Oct 2020. The Facts Until 2 Sept 2020, Mr Atias was one of three directo...

By Tkarcher - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=21882537 Jane Lambert Chancery Division  (Mr Justice Trower)   Celgard, LLC v Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co Ltd  [2020] EWHC 2072 (Ch) (30 July 2020) This was an application by Celgard LLC ("Celgard") for an interim injunction to restrain Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co Ltd ("Senior") from placing its battery separators onto the UK market or importing them into the United Kingdom on the ground that such marketing and importation would infringe Celgard's rights under the Trade Secrets Directive ( Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (Text with EEA relevance ) OJ L 157, 15.6.2016, p. 1–18) and at common law.  Celgard al...