Posts

Were we to go - what would Brexit mean for IP?

Image
Just before the Scottish referendum I wrote a couple of articles on the SNP's proposals for intellectual property in a separate Scotland ( What would an independent Scottish government do about Intellectual Property?   10 Sept 2014 and  More on Scotland and Intellectual Property   13 Sept 2014). Today I shall attempt a similar exercise in respect of Brexit. What would not change Were we to withdraw from the European Union we would probably remain a member of the World Trade Organization  and bound by TRIPS ( Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) . Art 2 (1) of TRIPS requires WTO members to comply with Articles 1 through 12, and Article 19, of the Paris Convention . There is no reason why we should not remain party to the Berne , Rome  and other multilateral agreements to which we are party including the European Patent Convention . But what would However, we would miss out on the unitary patent and the Unifie...

Damages for Patent Infringement - AP Racing Ltd v Alcon Components Ltd

Image
Jane Lambert In  AP Racing Ltd v Alcon Components Ltd [2013] EWPCC 3 (5 Feb 2013) A P Racing Ltd . sued Alcon Components Ltd.  for patent infringement in the Patents County Court. The patent in suit was UK patent GB 2 451 690 for " disc brake caliper body and a disc brake caliper comprising such a body". His Honour Judge Birss QC (as he then was) found the patent to be invalid for insufficiency at paragraph [123] of his judgment. However, he also found that had the patent been valid 4 of the 5 shapes of Alcon's callipers would have infringed claim 1 of A P Racing's patent. A P Racing appealed successfully to the Court of Appeal in  AP Racing Ltd v Alcon Components Ltd ,    [2014] RPC 27, [2014] EWCA Civ 40.  The Court restored the patent and ordered an inquiry as to damages or an account of profits.  The claimant elected an inquiry which came on before His Honour Judge Halcon in  AP Racing Ltd v Alcon Components Lt...

Implementing the Unitary Patent in the UK

Image
Whitehall Photo T. B. Murray Source Wikipedia Creative Commons Licence Whatever happens on 23 June 2016 HMG will have to make rules to implement the  Agreement on a Unified Patent Court  in the United Kingdom. The reason I say that is that the Agreement comes into force after 13 countries, including France, Germany and the UK, ratify the Agreement. Nine countries including France have already done so (see the European Council's website ).  Parliament has enacted primary legislation to enable the Secretary of State to give effect to the Agreement in the UK by order in council (see  S,17 of the Intellectual Property Act 2014  inserting a new s.88A and s.88B into the  Patents Act 1977 ). As it would take time to negotiate an exit agreement under art 50 (2) of the Treaty on European Union  the Agreement will almost certainly come into force while the UK is still an EU member. There would have to be some sort of s...

Unitary Patent: UPC's Power to Amend

Image
Venetian Patent Act 1474 Source Wikipedia Yesterday I presented a talk on the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court. I had a good audience which included some familiar faces as well as several new ones. At the end of the talk I took questions and one of them was on the Court's power to amend.  I was able to answer the question from memory but I could not give chapter and verse and promised to do so in this blog. As I said yesterday, the starting point is the European Patent Convention art 138 (3) of which provides: "In proceedings before the competent court or authority relating to the validity of the European patent, the proprietor of the patent shall have the right to limit the patent by amending the claims. The patent as thus limited shall form the basis for the proceedings." The competent court in actions or counterclaims for revocation of unitary or other European patents will be the Unified Patent Court (see art 65 (1) of the UPC Ag...

Lookalikes: Gama Healthcare Ltd v PAL International Ltd

Image
In  Gama Healthcare Ltd v PAL International Ltd [2016] EWHC 75 (IPEC) (20 Jan 2016)   the claimant, Gama Healthcare Ltd ( "Gama" )  sued PAL International Ltd. ( "PAL" ) for passing off. Gama complained that the get-up of Pal's Medipal  disinfectant and detergent wet wipes was so similar to the packaging of its Clinell wipes that it was likely to lead members of the trade to believe that the defendant's wipes were those of the  claimant or otherwise connected with the claimant. The goodwill claimed  lay in the use of those colours in combination with the colour block design for the front of the packaging described. The proportion of the front of the pack which was to be coloured was not specified, and no part of the packaging was relied upon apart from the front of the package. Gama pleaded that the front of the package was the critical aspect that would most commonly be viewed by the public. Gama was founded in 2004 by two...

Caspian Pizza Ltd and Others v Shah and Another

Image
The sign that appears above is registered as a trade mark for Meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, compotes; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats; prepared meals; soups and potato crisps; canned foodstuffs; pizza toppings; preparations for making pizza toppings; dried preparations for use as pizza toppings; ingredients for making pizzas in class 29 in the name of Caspian Holding Franchise Limited under trade mark number 2,559,245 with effect from 21 Sept 2010. Until 12 Jan 2016 it had been registered to Behzad Zarandi ( Mr Zarandi" ) and Nadar Zand ( "Mr Zand" ). Until that date Mr Zarandi and Mr Zand also owned UK trade mark number 2,396,396 whereby the word CASPIAN had been registered for restaurant services, take-away food services and catering in services in class 43 with effect from 8 July 2005. Caspian Pizza Ltd.  ( "CP" ) run a chain of pi...

Preparing for the Unified Patent Court

Site of the London Section and UK Division of the Unified Patent Court Aldgate Tower | Location Flythrough from J2 Agency on Vimeo . On 28 Jan 2016 I shall give a talk to the CIPA Merseyside Meeting  entitled Preparing for the UPC. I will give another presentation in my chambers on 4 Feb 2016 entitled  Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court . The reason I shall give those talks is that the Unified Patent Court  ( "the UPC" ) is likely to come into being in the next few months which will in turn enable the European Patent Office  to grant its first European patents with unitary effect ( "unitary patents" ) for the territories of those countries that ratify the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court of 19 Feb 2013 ( "the UPC Agreement" ), When will the UPC come into being? Art 89 (1) of the UPC Agreement provides that it will come into force: "on 1 January 2014 or on the first day of the fourth month after the deposit of the thirteenth inst...

The Importance of Keeping Promises: Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Sandoz GmbH and Others

Image
Rolls Building In   Swiss Style Claims: Warner-Lambert Companv Actavis   25 Jan 2015 I explained that Warner-Lambert LLC had a patent for a drug called pregabalin for treating epilepsy and GAD (generalized anxiety disorder). That patent expired in 2013 although the monopoly was extended for a short time by a supplementary protection certificate which has now lapsed. Warner-Lambert discovered a new use for pregabalin in the treatment of neuropathic pain for which it was granted a new patent. Actavis sought the revocation of the new patent on grounds of obviousness and insufficiency and applied for permission to market pregabalin for the treatment of epilepsy and GAD. The case that I discussed in my case note was an unsuccessful attempt by Warner-Lambert to impose conditions on the sale of pregabilin in the UK (see   Warner -Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF and others [2015] EWHC 72 (Pat)). The action came on for trial before Mr Justice A...