NIPC Law

Licence  CC0 1.0.   Source   Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property List (ChD) (Sir Anthony Mann)  Easygroup Ltd v Easy Live (Services) Ltd. and others [2022] EWHC 3327 (Ch) (21 Dec2022) This was an action for trade mark infringement and passing off  and a counterclaim for the revocation of some of the marks on which the claimant relied in respect of certain specified services.   The claimant, Easygroup Ltd ("Easygroup") , owned the marks listed in Appendix 1 to the judgment of Sir Anthony Mann in  Easygroup Ltd v Easy Live (Services) Ltd and others [2022] EWHC 3327. Easygroup complained that Easy Live (Services) Ltd. ("ELA"), had infringed those marks by supplying computer software for use in auctions and conducting online auctions under the signs that appear in Appendix 2 to the judgment.  ELA sought to revoke  easyGroup ,  easyMoney ,  easyPropert y an...

Author   Dfrg.msc   Public Domain Source  Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Arnold and Nugee and Sir Christopher Floyd) Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG    [2022] EWCA Civ 1617 (8 Dec 2022) This was an appeal against Mrs Justice Bacon's refusal to grant an Arrow declaration in  Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG [2022] EWHC 2779 (Ch) (19 Oct 2022). Lord Justice Arnold defined an Arrow declaration as "a declaration that a product, process or use was lacking in novelty or obvious as at the priority date of a patent application" at para [17] of his judgment in  Teva UK Ltd and another v Novartis AG [2022] EWCA Civ 1617.  He explained that Arrow declarations take their name from the seminal decision of Kitchin J (as he then was) in Arrow Generics Ltd v Merck & Co Inc [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat), [2008] Bus LR 487.  He continued:   "The point of such declaration is that it is in eff...

  Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Arnold and Nugee and Sir Christopher Floyd)  Philip Morris Products, SA v Nicoventures Trading Ltd and another [2022] EWCA Civ 1638 (16 Dec 2022) This was an appeal by Philip Morris Products SA ("PMI") against the finding by Mr Justice Marcuas Smith that its European patents (UK), EP 3 248 483, EP 3 248 484 . EP 3 248 485 and EP 3 248 486  were invalid for obviousness.  I discussed that case in  Patents - Nicoventures Trading Ltd v Philip Morris Products SA   on 24 Nov 2021. Grounds of Appeal PMI appealed on the following grounds: "i) Ground 1: the judge wrongly construed the 486 patent when he held that both multiple separately connected electrically conductive tracks and a single track with a plurality of portions were covered by claim 1, when only the latter was covered; ii) Ground 2: the judge asked the wrong question on obviousness because of the error identified in gr...

  Jane Lambert Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Nicholas Caddick QC) Vernacare Ltd v Moulded Fibre Products Ltd.   [2022] EWHC  2197 (IPEC) This was an action for patent infringement.  It was brought by  Vernacare Limited ("Vernacare")  against  Moulded Fibre Products Limited (“MFP”).   Vernacare held the following UK patents:  GB 2446793 (“793”)   for a wash bowl. and  GB2439947 ("947")  for mouldable paper pulp composition.  It complained that a wash bowl marketed by WFP infringed both patents. WFP challenged the validity of those patents and denied that its wash bowl infringed 793.  The proceedings were tried by Nicholas Caddick QC (as he then was) sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division between 13 and 15 June 2022. He delivered judgment on 15 June 2022 (see  Vernacare Ltd v Moulded Fibre Products Ltd [2022] EWHC 2197 (IPEC))....