NIPC Law

Author   Dfrg.msc   Public Domain Source  Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Arnold and Nugee and Sir Christopher Floyd) Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG    [2022] EWCA Civ 1617 (8 Dec 2022) This was an appeal against Mrs Justice Bacon's refusal to grant an Arrow declaration in  Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG [2022] EWHC 2779 (Ch) (19 Oct 2022). Lord Justice Arnold defined an Arrow declaration as "a declaration that a product, process or use was lacking in novelty or obvious as at the priority date of a patent application" at para [17] of his judgment in  Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG [2022] EWCA Civ 1617.  He explained that Arrow declarations take their name from the seminal decision of Kitchin J (as he then was) in Arrow Generics Ltd v Merck & Co Inc [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat), [2008] Bus LR 487.  He continued:   "The point of such declaration is that it is in eff...

Author SimonDes   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0 Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Meade) Philip Morris Products, SA and another v RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc and another [2021] EWHC 537 (Pat) (9 March 2021) This was an action for revocation of  European Patent (UK) 3 398 460 B1  ("460") and European Patent (UK) 3 491 944 B1 ("944") and a counterclaim for infringement by the products shown above. The action and counterclaim came on for trial before Mr Jutrice Meade between 5 and 12 Feb 2021. At  para [223] of his judgment in Philip Morris Products, SA and another r v RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc and another [2021] EWHC 537 (which he handed down on 9 March 2021, the learned judge held that the patents were invalid for added matter and obviousness but had the patents been valid they would have been infringed. The Inventions Both patents are divisionals  from PCT Application WO 2008/108889  for a tobacco-containing smoking art...

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Kwikbolt Ltd v Airbus Operations Ltd [2021] EWHC 732 (IPEC) (25 March 2021) This was an action for an injunction, damages and other relief against aerospace manufacturer Airbus Operations Ltd, for patent infringement. There was also a counterclaim by Airbus for revocation of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness and insufficiency. The action and counterclaim came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon between 9 and 12 Feb 2021. In  Kwikbolt Ltd v Airbus Operations Ltd [2021] EWHC 732 (IPEC) (25 March 2021) His Honour held that the patent was valid but that it had not been infringed.  The Patent The patent in suit is GB2455635B .  It was granted for a removable blind fastener.  The title might suggest that the invention has something to do with window blinds in an aircraft  cabin, In fact  "'Blind' is a term of art in the context of fasteners, meaning that...

The Rolls Building Author  Basher Eyre  Licence Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court (HH Judge Hacon):  Cantel Medical (UK) Ltd and another v ARC Medical Design Ltd   [2018] EWHC 345 (Pat) This was a claim by Cantel Medical (UK) Ltd and Cantel (UK) Limited  for the revocation or declarations of non-infringement of the following patents , registered Community designs ("RCD") and unregistered design rights : European patent number 2 575 590 for a covering for a medical scoping device ; UK patent number 2 478 081 for a covering for medical scoping device ; RCD number 001856121-0001 ; RCD number 002523191-0001 ; the design right in the design on an attachment to a colonoscope known as the Endocuff; and the design right in the design of another attachment known as the Endocuff Vision. ARC Medical Design Ltd ., which is the registered...