‘Commercially important questions concerning the degree to which software, including artificial intelligence (AI) systems, can be patented, are to be considered by the UK’s highest court in what will be the second important AI patent case to come before it.’
OUTLAW.com, 3rd December 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘While a recent court ruling has not made it any easier, it remains possible for developers of software – including new artificial intelligence (AI) systems – to obtain patent protection for their inventions in the UK an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th August 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The Patents Court (Richards J) has dismissed Ericsson’s applications contesting the Court’s jurisdiction and seeking a strike out of elements of Lenovo’s claim. Richards J further dismissed Ericsson’s application in the alternative for a case management stay.’
Blackstone Chambers, 1st May 2024
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘The UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has issued updated guidelines for examining patent applications relating to artificial intelligence (AI) inventions just days before the Court of Appeal in London is due to hear arguments in a case that triggered the release of the revised guidance.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th May 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘Allegations that intellectual property law firms earn millions of pounds a year in commissions secretly paid by patent renewal businesses are to be tested in a group claim following a Court of Appeal decision.’
Law Society's Gazette, 22nd January 2024
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Artificial intelligence (AI) systems cannot be the owner of, nor be transferred, patent rights in the UK, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th December 2023
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘This fascinating case is imperative reading for anyone not computer literate who wishes to understand the concept of an Artificial Neural Network. In recent times the courts have had to grapple with the difficulties of this concept in relation to traditional computers and software. This appeal raised new questions because it involved deciding whether the use of an aspect of Artificial Intelligence, namely an Artificial Neural Network (“ANN”), in the circumstances of this case, fell under section 1(2)(c) of the Patents Act 1977 which excludes from patent protection “a program for a computer … as such”..’
UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd November 2023
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The High Court in London has issued its first global fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing decision since the UK Supreme Court’s landmark Unwired Planet ruling in 2020, confirming the approach taken by the judge in that case.’
OUT-LAW.com, 16th March 2023
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The European patent landscape is changing significantly with the introduction of the unitary patent (UP) and Unified Patent Court (UPC). The UPC will provide a one-stop shop for patent litigation throughout a large part of Europe. Decisions will be made by local and regional divisions of the UPC based across Europe that sit under the umbrella of one centralised judicial framework.’
OUT-LAW.com, 1st August 2022
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that an artificial intelligence machine cannot qualify as an “inventor” for the purposes of Sections 7 and 13 of the Patents Act because it is not a person. Further, in determining whether a person had the right to apply for a patent under Section 7(2)(b), there was no rule of law that new intangible property produced by existing tangible property was the property of the owner of the tangible property, and certainly no rule that property in an invention created by a machine was owned by the owner of the machine.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 28th September 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Pharmaceutical manufacturers that claim patent rights over multiple compounds on the basis of a general formula will welcome a new ruling by the Court of Appeal in London, experts in patent litigation have said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 2nd September 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The High Court in London has decided in favour of Optis Cellular Technology in a dispute over the validity of one of its telecommunications network patents and one that was said to be essential to the long-term evolution (LTE) network standard.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th July 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in Unwired Planet. Its decision has profound implications for patent owners and implementers alike and is likely to lead to heavily contested jurisdictional disputes going forward.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 15th September 2020
Source: competitionbulletin.com
‘The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in Unwired Planet. Its decision has profound implications for patent owners and implementers alike and is likely to lead to heavily contested jurisdictional disputes going forward.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 15th September
Source: competitionbulletin.com
‘Long-awaited Supreme Court rulings on mobile phone patents will boost the UK’s position as a forum for resolving global IP licensing disputes, specialist lawyers said today.’
Law Society's Gazette, 26th August 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘This appeal discusses whether the English court has the power or jurisdiction, or is it a proper exercise of any such power or jurisdiction without the parties’ agreement:
– to grant an injunction restraining infringement of a UK SEP unless the defendant enters into a global licence under a multinational patent portfolio;
– to determine the rates/terms for such a licence; and
– to declare that such rates/terms are FRAND?’
UKSC Blog, 26th August 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘In this case comment, Caitlin Heard, Frances Denney and Robert Stephen, who all work within the intellectual property team at CMS, comment on the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court in June 2020 in the matter of Regeneron v Kymab [2020] UKSC 27, which concerns whether patents were invalid for insufficiency.’
UKSC Blog, 2nd July 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc filed patents for a new type of genetically modified mouse which was a hybrid version of the gene that produces antibodies, combining a section of the mouse’s genetic material with a section of the genetic material from a human. In 2013, Regeneron sued Kymab Ltd for infringements of its patents. Kymab was producing its own genetically modified mice, with a similar genetic structure to Regeneron’s mice. Kymab argued that the patents filed were invalid because they fell foul of a patent law rule called sufficiency which means that documents filed with the patent must be detailed enough to enable scientifically skilled readers to make the invention for themselves. The Court of Appeal upheld the patents and Kymab appealed to the Supreme Court.’
UKSC Blog, 24th June 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘In Evalve Inc and others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd #1 [2020] EWHC 514 (Pat) (12 March 2020)). Mr Justice Birss held that two patents that protected the market for a device known as the MitraClip were valid and infringed. In Evalve Inc and others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd (#2) [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat) (12 March 2020) Mr Justice Birss rejected the defendant’s contention that it should be allowed to market its product notwithstanding the judgment on the ground that some patients were assisted by a product that competed with the MitraClip but not by the MitraClip itself. I blogged about those cases in Patents – Evalve Inc. and Others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd. #1 27 March 2020 NIPC Law and Patents – Evalve Inc. and Others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd. #2 30 March 2020.’
NIPC Law, 20th June 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024