Posts

Employees' Inventions: Parsons v Convatec Ltd.

Image
Author Judicial Office UK Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Zacaroli) Parsons v Convatec Lt d [2023] EWHC 1535 (Pat) (26 June 2023) This was an application by an employer to strike out or summarily dismiss part of its employee's claim for compensation under s.40 of the Patents Act 1977.  S.7 (2) of the Patents Act 1977 states that a patent for an invention may be granted primarily to the inventor except where a rule of law or contract entitles someone else to claim the invention.  One such exception is provided by s.39  which entitles employers to claim their employees' inventions in certain circumstances.  Most employees who are expected to invent something in the course of their employment enjoy generous salaries and benefits but there are some inventions that are so valuable to the employer that it is just to reward the employee with something extra.  S.40 makes provision for such re...

Patents - Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v Astellas Pharma Inc.

Image
  Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Arnold and Stuart-Smith and Lady Justice Falk)  Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and another v Astellas Pharma Inc [2023] EWCA Civ 880 (25 July 2023) This was an appeal against the dismissal of the claim by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva UK Ltd. ("Teva") for revocation of  European Patent (UK) 1 559 427 B1  for a "Remedy for overactive bladder comprising acetic acid anilide derivative as the active ingredient" and Supplementary Protection Certificate No. SPC/GB13/035  and judgment on a counterclaim by Astellas Pharma Inc. ("Astellas") for infringement (see Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v Astellas Pharma Inc . [2022] EWHC 1316 (Pat) (1 June 2022), It came on before Lords Justices Arnold and Sturt-Smith and Lady Justice Falk on 17 and 18 July 2023.  Judgment was handed down on 25 July 2023.  By a unanimous judgment the Court dismissed the appeal (see  Teva Pharmaceutical Industr...

Trade Marks - Acedes Holdings LLC v Clive Sutton Ltd

Image
Author Stahlkocher   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon) Acedes Holdings LLP and another v Cliver Sutton Ltd and another   [ 2023] EWHC 2005 (IPEC) (7 Aug 2023) This was a counterclaim by the defendants for the invalidation and revocation of the first claimant's  trade mark number 905883806 .  The mark was AC COBRA registered for automobiles, cars and sports cars. The claimants had brought proceedings for infringement of that trade mark but they discontinued their claim shortly before the trial.  The counterclaim came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon on 4 July 2023.  By para [84] of his judgment of 7 Aug 2023, the learned judge dismissed the counterclaim ( Acedes Holdings LLP and another v Cliver Sutton Ltd and another [2023] EWHC 2005). The Issues Judge Hacon identified the issues in para [7] of his judgment: "(1) Whether AC Cobra Mark was invalidly...

Confidentiality - InterDigital Technology Corporation and others v Lenovo Group Ltd. and others

Image
  Author  Interdigital  Licence   CC BY-SA 4.0   Source  Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Cour t (Mr Justice Mellor) Interdigital Technology Corp and others v Lenovo Group Ltd and others [2023] EWHC 1577 (Pat) (28 June 2023 I discussed Mr Justice Mellor's judgment in Interdigital Technology Corp and others v Lenovo Group Ltd and others [2023] EWHC 539 (Pat) in Patents - Interdigital Technology Corporation and others v Lenovo Group Ltd. and others   on 21 March 2023.  That had been a trial to determine the payments and other terms upon which patents that were essential for compliance with technical standards could be used.   At the end of my case note, I wrote: "This has been an extraordinarily difficult case note to write partly because the judgment is 225 pages long and partly because large chunks of it have been redacted, The judge has promised to publish a fuller version of his judgment in due course but even that...

Copyright - Wright v BTC Core

Image
Author Satoshi Nakamoto Copyright released   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lady Justice Asplin and Lord Justices Arnold and Warby)  Wright and others v BTC Core and others (Rev1) [2023] EWCA Civ 868 (20 July 2023) This was an appeal against Mr Justice Mellor's refusal in   Wright and others v BTC Core and others  [2023] EWHC 222 (Ch) (7 Feb 2023 to permit service outside England and Wales of claim forms alleging copyright infringement.  The claimants were Craig Steven Wright who claims to have created  Bitcoin  and two of Dr Wright's companies.  Bitcoin is a  cryptocurrency  that is attributed to one  Satoshi Nakamoto .  Dr Wright claims to be Mr Nakamoto.  The defendants are companies and individuals from around the world who are accused of copying matter known as "the Bitcoin File Format."  Dr Wright and his companies say that copyright subsists in the Bitcoin File Format and claim ownership on ...

Use of Confidential Information Referred to in Court - JC Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd

Image
Author ERab123   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Sir Andrew McFarlane P, Lord Justice Arnold and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing) JC Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd and another [2023] EWCA Civ 840 (17 July 2023) This is an important case on the law of confidence and trade secrets as well as Patent Court Practice.  In   JC Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd and another  [2022] EWHC 1724 (Pat) (4 July 2022) which I discussed in  Patents - J C Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd   on 7 March 2023 the defendants, Manitou UK Ltd. and Manitou BF SA ("Manitour"), disclosed information relating to the configuration of the control system of their telehandlers  to a group of nominated lawyers and experts from both parties known as "a confidentiality club ". The reason Manitou limited their disclosure to that group was explained by their solicitor: "Manitou should be entitled to prot...