NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Lord Justice Birss)  Facebook Ireland Ltd v Voxer IP LLC [2021] EWHC 1377 (Pat) (26 May 2021) This was an action by Facebook Ireland Ltd  ("Facebook") for the revocation of  EP 2 393 259 B1  ("the patent") held by Voxer IP LLC ("Voxer") and a counterclaim by Voxer for infringement of the patent. Voxer applied for the amendment of its patent and it was common ground that the patent would have to be revoked if the application had been refused. Facebook objected to the amendments on several grounds including  added matter .   It also contended that amendment would not cure the patent's invalidity.  The action and counterclaim came on for trial before Lord Justice Birss between 12 and 15 April 2021. He delivered judgment in Facebook Ireland Ltd v Voxer IP LLC [2021] EWHC 1377 (Pat) on 26 May 2021. The Patent The invention for which the patent was granted is called a telecommunication and multimedia management meth...

Author Addicted04   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court (Nicholas Caddick QC) GK IP Bridge 1 v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd. and others    2021] EWHC 1261 (Pat) (14 May 2021) This was an application by two Chinese companies, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and Huawei Device Co. Ltd. to set aside an order by the Chief Master to permit service of process against them on the British company Huawei Technologies (UK) Ltd, and the companies' solicitors.  The application came on before Nicholas Caddick QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 15 April 2021. By para [36] of his judgment of 14 May 2021. Mr Caddick QC set aside the Chief Master's order (see GK    IP Bridge 1 v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and others  [2021] EWHC 1261 (Pat) (14 May 2021). The Dispute This is a dispute between Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and Huawei Device Co. Ltd and the first defendant's British subsidiary, Huawei Technologies (UK) L...

Author Dori   Public Domain Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co, Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1048 (Pat) (26 April 2021) This was a trial to determine whether European patent (UK) 1925142B1  is essential to version 10.0.0 and all subsequent versions of TS36.322 of the 4th generation 3GPP Long-Term Evolution (“LTE’) standard.  The registered proprietor of the patent is SISVEL International S.A which is the second claimant in these proceedings.   The proceedings are part of a wider dispute as to whether the defendants should take a licence from the first claimant's patent pool ("MCP pool") on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms.  As is often the case in FRAND disputes the defendant implementors denied the patent's validity, its essentiality to the standard and that it had been infringed.  They also disputed the fairn...

  Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Iain Purvis QC) Semtech Corporation and others v Lacuna Space Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1143 (Pat) (5 May 2021) This was a challenge to the court's jurisdiction by two former employees of the third claimant under art 22.1 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1–32 ("the Brussels Recast Regulation) .  That article provides that an employer may bring proceedings against its employee only in the courts of the Member State in which the employee is domiciled.  The application came on before Mr Iain Purvis QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 30 April 2021.  At para [75] of his judgment in  S emtech Corporation and others v Lacuna Space Ltd and other s [2021] EWHC 1143 (Pat) (5 May 2021), the learned deputy judge found that he had...

Author  Basher Eyre #   Lixnxw  CC BY-SA 2. 0 Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor)  Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Xiaomi Inc and others [2021] EWHC 1124 (Pat) (26 April 2021) On 21 Oct 2020 Koninklijke Philips N.V issued patent infringement proceedings against Xiaomi Inc and its subsidiaries in the UK, Cayman Islands and Hong Kong. Phillips claimed that the patents that the Xiaomi companies are alleged to have infringed are essential to a standard for the operation of 3G and 4G mobile phone networks for which it has undertaken to grant licences.  Phillips sought a declaration that the terms upon which it grants licences are FRAND, that is to say fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory As all the defendants except the second are outside the jurisdiction, Phillips needed the court's permission to serve them. It applied to Mr Justice Mann on 26 Oct 2020 who granted such leave to Phillips as well as other relief.  The second defendant, Xia...

2D Structure of T ravoprost Author Vaccinationist     Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Meade)   Alcon Research LLC and other v Actavis Group PTC EHF and others [2021] EWHC 1026 (Pat) (23 April 2021) This was an action for relief for the infringement of European patent (UK) 1 920 764  which had expired in 2014 and a counterclaim for its revocation on grounds of anticipation , obviousness  and insufficiency .  The defendants admitted that their products would have infringed the patent had it been valid so these were effectively revocation proceedings.  A supplementary protection certificate  numbered  SPC/GB12/038  had been granted for  Travoprost  upon the expiry of the patent but the only issue that related to the SPC depended on the validity of the patent. The action and counterclaim came on for trial before Mr Justice Meade between 16 and 22 March 2021 and his lordship delivered ju...

The Rolls Building Author Basher Eyre   Licence CC BY-SA 2.0   Source  Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Mitsubishi Electric Company and another v Archos SA and others   [2021] EWHC 889 (Pat) (13 April 2021) A FRAND case is essentially a patent infringement claim where the remedy to which a successful claimant would normally be entitled has been modified by agreement.  Mr Justice Birss summarized the principle succinctly at para [83] of his judgment in   Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and anothe r [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat) (5 April 2017): "The point of FRAND in standard setting is fairly easy to understand. Standards exist so that different manufacturers can produce equipment which is interoperable with the result that the manufacturers compete with one another. So the phone makers compete in the market for phones and the public can select a phone from any supplier and be sure (for exa...