NIPC Law

Until the 31 March 2013 it was possible to enter a conditional fee agreement ( "CFA" ) whereby the other side would pay any success fee. Similarly, it was possible to look to the other side to pay an after-the-event  ( "ATE" ) insurance premium.   In his  Final Report  S ir Rupert Jackson  recommended that success fees and ATE insurance premiums should cease to be recoverable from unsuccessful opponents in civil litigation as those costs were "the major contributor to disproportionate costs in civil litigation in England and Wales".. S.44 (4)  and s.46 (1)  of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 which came into effect on 1 April 2013 carried those recommendations into effect.  It is, of course, still possible to enter a CFA and take out ATE insurance but any success fee or insurance premium has to be paid by the successful party out of any damages that the successful party may receive. ...

In "The End of Mediation?"  which I posted on 4 June 2012 I wrote that the IPO was thinking of discontinuing its mediation service because it had conducted only 13 mediations in the previous 5 years and only one in the last year.  That was not because the IPO service was expensive or because it was rubbish. I had used it in 2009 and was very satisfied (see "Practice: Mediation in the IPO" 2 Oct 2009). Nor did it appear that mediation work was going elsewhere. In my article I ventured some suggestions as to why mediation of intellectual property disputes seemed to be going out of style. At least in England and Wales. "I think there are a number of explanations for the low take up of the IPO's mediation service. First, commercial and litigation solicitors tell me that they are getting far less intellectual property work nowadays. Getting rid of employees and getting out of commitments such as shareholders; agreements and partnerships seem to be the m...

Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd   [2013] UKSC 16 Supreme Court Lords Neuberger, Walker, Mance and Kerr and Lady Hale) This was an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal in  Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 303, [2011] Bus LR 1510, [2011] FSR 19 which I had blogged in "Patents: Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd "  on 2 April 2011. The point in this appeal was whether cross-bottling - the practice of replacing the a 1,000 litre bottle  that had been supplied by Schütz (U.K.) Limited, the exclusive licensee of a patent for a type of intermediate bulk carrier ( "IBC" ) like the one pictured above, with one supplied by a third party such as Werit - amounted to making for the purpose of s.60 (1) (a) of the Patents Act 1977 .  In the Patents Court, Mr. Justice Floyd held that it did not (see  Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd and Another   [2010] EWHC 660 (Pat), [2010] Bus LR 1244...

Fredrik Neij and Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi founded one of the world's largest file sharing sites known as The Pirate Bay . They were prosecuted for offences under the Swedish copyright act ( Upphovsrättslagen , 1960:729)  and in the same process sued by various record companies and other copyright owners for copyright infringement in the Stockholm district cour t ( Tingsrätt ). After a hearing that lasted from the 16 Feb until 3 March 2009 they were found guilty of the charges and sentenced to a year's imprisonment on 17 April 2009. They were also ordered to pay damages of SEK30 million to the copyright owners. They appealed to the Swedish court of appeal ( ( Svea hovrätt ) which upheld their convictions but reduced their sentences and increased the damages award on 26 Nov 2010. They applied for permission to appeal to the Swedish supreme court ( Högsta domstolen ) but that court rejected their application on 1 Feb 2012. On 20 June 2012 Mr. Neij and Mr. Kolmisoppi complaine...

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...

It is perhaps eccentric if not downright ungrateful to promote a different business model for the music and motion picture industries having rebuilt my practice on advising and representing defendants to copyright infringement claims by trade associations in those industries but a flower is a great deal cheaper than an intellectual property lawyer and not necessarily less effective.  Before considering Mr.Justice Arnold's judgment in  EMI Records Ltd and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others     [2013] EWHC 379 (Ch), [2013] WLR(D) 86 it is perhaps worth watching Amanda Palmer's video on The Art of Asking and pondering her message which I have reproduced from the TED website : "Don't make people pay for music, says Amanda Palmer: Let them. In a passionate talk that begins in her days as a street performer (drop a dollar in the hat for the Eight-Foot Bride!), she examines the new relationship between artist and fan. Alt-rock icon Amanda Fucking Palmer...

I have had this conversation several times since Mr. Justice Newey handed down his judgment in   Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp and Others v Harris and others [2013] EWHC 159 (Ch) (5 Feb 2013). As this is only an interim injunction application in an action that is still to be tried and as this judgment may be appealed it would not be right to for me to analyse it in a way that I would a case in which I had not been briefed..   However, as this was quite an unusual case. the judgment does need to be interpreted if it is to be understood.   So here are some FAQ style questions and answers. So what was this case all about? This was an application by members of the Motion Picture Association of America Inc , the trade association of the second largest film industry .in the world , for a proprietary injunction to restrain a Mr. David Harris and a number of companies with which he is connected from dealing with, or disposing of, a McLaren ...

For several months the "Patents Court Guide" link on the Justice Ministry website led not to a guide to the  practice of the Patents Court but to a guide to the new practice in the Patents County Court. Between the 23 April 1999 and the 30 Sept 2010 that would not have mattered because the rules and practice directions for the Patents Court and the Patents County Court were essentially the same. Since the 1 Oct 2010 the practices of the Patents Court and Patents County Court have diverged once more and there is now a small claims track in the Patents County Court where the claim for pecuniary relief (damages or profits) is less than £5,000. For more information on those developments, read "The New County Court Rules" 31 Oct 2010 and "Patents County Court - The New Small Claims Track Rules" 30 Sept 2012. We now have a plethora of new practice guides: The Patents Court Guide  The Patents County Court Guide , and Guide to the Patents County Court Smal...

Kate Storey Many thanks for your interest in Guernsey's innovative image rights legislation. Your blog gives me the opportunity to highlight the benefits of having Guernsey registered image rights if you are a personality based outside Guernsey, anywhere in the world. By 'personality' it is meant the personality of any individual, corporate entity or fictional character, or a group or double act, whether alive/in existence or deceased/dissolved within 100 years prior to the date of application (in this latter regard, think of the continued commercial significance of Elvis, Michael Jackson and Marilyn Monroe). The Guernsey legislation will be of interest to those in the public eye, or those at the beginning of their careers who anticipate being well known in the future, in a wide or relevant sector of the public in any part of the world. The below-listed benefits are extracted from an article I co-authored, which is due to be published in the Entertainment Law Review lat...