NIPC Law

Tapioca Pearls Author Lars Plougmann   Licence CC BY-SA 2.0   Source Wikimedia   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Duadata Ltd v Tian Cha Le Ltd . [2026] EWHC 1055 (IPEC) (8 May 2026) This was an inquiry as to damages for passing off.   The claimant operated a nationwide chain of bubble tea  shops and franchises under the Mooboo brand. Bubble tea is a beverage that contains small chewy tapioca balls and various flavourings of different kinds.  A company owned and operated by one Qin Lin held a Mooboo franchise for Gateshead between 8 April 2021 and 23 Jan 2024.  On 22 Aug 2023, Ms Lin incorporated the defendant which began to operate a bubble tea outlet in Gateshead adopting a similar menu design, products, drinks, recipes and prices to the claimant's.  The claimant sued the defendant for passing off on 24 May 2024. The Order The defendant did not defend the claim and the claimant obtained a default ...

Jane Lambert   Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss) IPCom GmbH & Co Kg v HTC Europe Co Ltd and others [2020] EWHC 2941 (Pat) (4 Nov 2020) This was an application by the defendants to strike out part of the  points of claim in an inquiry as to the claimant's damages for patent infringement that had been ordered by the Chancellor, Sir Geoffrey Vos, on 17 Dec 2019. The claimant claimed millions of dollars whereas the defendants contended that it was entitled only to a small percentage of that sum. The patent in suit was EP (UK) 1 841 268   which had been declared essential to an ETSI telecommunications standard.  The claimant had given an undertaking to license the use of the patent to implementers of the standards on FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms.  The patent had been the subject of litigation for many years.  When the case came on before the Chancellor the patent had only a few more weeks to run.  The defendants withdrew t...

Money Photo Wikipedia I last discussed this litigation in  Success Fees and ATE Premiums in the Patents County Court: Henderson v All Around the World Recordings Ltd   4 May 2013. I set out the basic facts in my case note: "This was an action for infringement of a performer's rights which Judge Birss QC (as he then was) decided in Henderson v All Around the World Recordings Ltd and Another [2013] EWPCC 7 (13 Feb 2013)....... She had not been entirely successful and the costs of an unsuccessful copyright claim and half the costs of an application were awarded against her but she had succeeded overall." The claimant had entered a conditional fee agreement with specialist solicitors and counsel because it was the only way she could bring this litigation. Her total costs and disbursements including success fees and after-the-event premiums would have been £232,676.20 had they been allowed but Judge Birss QC (as he then was) awarded her only...