NIPC Law

Author Goodtiming8871   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikipedia Cellular Network  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss)  Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and other s [2020] EWHC 14 (Pat) (8 Jan 2020) This was a patent infringement claim by  Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL  against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd .,  ZTE Corporation  and their respective British subsidiaries.  The patents alleged to have been infringed are European patents (UK) 1 878 177  ("177"), 3 267 722  ("722") and 3 197 206  ("206"). Conversant had declared those patents to be essential to certain 3G and 4G standards. It argued that manufacturing, distributing or marketing items that met those standards without its licence would necessarily infringe the patents. The defendants contended that the patents were invalid on various grounds and denied that the patents were essential to t...

Author: Peters Hans/Arnefo Licence Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Netherlands Source Wikipedia Ice Dance Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Kitchin, Lord Justices Floyd and Longmore)  Icescape Ltd v Ice-World International BV and Another   : [2018] EWCA Civ 2219 The importance of this case is that it interprets, applies and possibly extends the Supreme Court's judgment in  Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and Others    [2017] Bus LR 1731, [2017] RPC 21, [2017] UKSC 48 which I discussed in The Supreme Court's Judgment in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and Others: how to understand it and why it is important   13 July 2017. Summary  This case started as a threats action.  The defence was that the threats were justified because the patent in suit had been infringed. That prompted a claim for a declaration of non-infringement and revocation of that patent to which there was a counterclaim for infringement.  T...

A wife complains to the Qadi about her husband's impotence Artist : Hamse-i Atai (18th century Ottoman miniature) Source Wikipedia Mr Justice Birss:  Actavis and Others v Eli Lilly and Anothe r [2016] EWHC 1955 (Pat) (10 Aug 2016)  Although it is not spelt out anywhere in the 492 paragraphs and annexes to Mr Justice Birss's judgment, this complicated litigation appears to have been an action by a group of generics suppliers led by the Icelandic company Actavis Group PTC EHF  for the revocation of European patent (UK)    1,173,181 entitled  Composition comprising phosphodiesterase inhibitors for the treatment of sexual dysfunction  and European patent (UK) 1,200,092  Beta-carboline drug products  and a counterclaim against two of those companies for patent infringement. No less than 4 separate actions were consolidated in a trial that took place between the 15 June and 1 July 2016. Judgment was de...

According to Wikipedia ,  Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, is the world's largest information technology company in terms of revenue. Apple Inc . is number two. Samsung supplies the famous Galaxy smart phone  and Apple the well known iPhone .  Over the last few years Samsung and Apple have fought each other in the world's court rooms.(see "Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd" in Wikipedia).  In the last round over Apple's registered Community design, Apple came off second best (see Jane Lambert "Apple v Samsung - the Appeal" 26 Oct 2012) and was made to eat humble pie (see Jane Lambert "Samsung v Apple: 'Be you never so high ....'." 2 Nov 2012 and "Samsung v Apple: the Reasons" 30 Dec 2012).  In  Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd v Apple Retail UK Ltd and Another (No. 1) [2013] EWHC 467 (Pat) and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Retail UK Ltd and Another   (No. 2) [2013] EWHC 468 (Pat) Apple did rather better. Mr. Ju...