NIPC Law

Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Floyd and Lewison) Mexichem UK Limited v Honeywell International Inc . [2020] EWCA Civ 473 (1 April 2020) This was an appeal by the defendant company against Judge Hacon's refusal in Mexichem UK Ltd v Honeywell International Inc, 2019 WL 06877912 (2019) to strike out, or grant summary judgment in respect of, the claimant's application for an Arrow declaration. In Missed! Arrow Declarations - Pfizer v Hoffmann La Roche 5 Aug 2019 I described an "Arrow declaration" as "a declaration that a product or process was known or obvious at a particular date and therefore could not fall within the claims of a patent." They take their name from the judgment in Arrow Generics Ltd and another v Merck & Co, Inc [2008] Bus LR 487, [2007] FSR 39, [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat) but they derive from the much older "squeeze" case of Gillette Safety Razor Co v Anglo-American Trading Co Ltd. (1913) 30 RPC 465. The ...

Scotland's position in the British Isles, Europe and the World Source Wikipedia In "What would an independent Scottish government do about Intellectual Property?"  I discussed what the Scottish government said it would do about intellectual property if Scotland seceded from the United Kingdom. Today I will consider what the white paper did not say. The Current Situation Scotland like the rest of the UK protects intellectual assets (brands, designs, technology and works of art and literature) by a bundle of laws some of which derive from statute such as patents, copyrights and trade marks, some from European Union regulations such as Community designs and trade marks, and some such as confidentiality and passing off from common law. Some of those rights have to be registered with the Intellectual Property Office in Newport, others with the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market ( "OHIM ) and European patents wit...

In view of recent opinion polls, I have taken another look at page 102 of the Scottish Government's white paper Scotland's Future . That contains a section headed "Intellectual Property" which consists of 4 paragraphs though only the first sets out any policy. The second is concerned with the Scottish Arbitration Centre , the third is on immigration and the fourth is on a joint venture between Visit Scotland and the Walt Disney Company and the exposition of Scottish food and drink in Florida. So what is the policy? I reproduce the first paragraph of the section on IP in full: "We will ensure continuity of the legal framework for protecting intellectual property rights. Independence will also allow Scotland to offer a simpler and cheaper, more business-friendly model than the current UK system, which is bureaucratic and expensive, especially for small firms. The UK is one of the few EU countries which does not offer a scheme that covers the bas...

In its second intellectual property appeal (the first being Lucasfilm v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39 see my case note " Lucasfilm v Ansoworth The Supreme Court's First IP Appeal" 31 July 2011 IP/IT Update) the United Kingdom Supreme Court had to consider the way in which the requirement of industrial applicability extends to a patent for biological material. One of the conditions for the grant of a patent in art 52 (1) of the European Patent Convention ( "EPC" ) is that the invention is "susceptible of industrial application." Art 57 further provides that "[a]n invention shall be considered as susceptible of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture." S.1 (1) (c) and s. 4 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 makes identical provision in respect of British patents. Footnote 5 to art 27 of TRIPS suggests that the term "capable of industrial application" may be deemed by a WTO member as syn...