‘Last week the UK The Supreme Court ruled against the designer of the award-winning Trunki children’s suitcase. PMS International Group’s competing product, the Kiddee Case, does not infringe Magmatic’s registered design rights.’
Technology Law Update, 15th March 2016
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘Europe’s new unitary patent is still on track, with a start date in spring 2017 now viewed as likely. Among the ongoing business of the Unified Patent Court’s Preparatory Committee a final publication on court fees and recoverable costs has recently been issued.’
Technology Law Update, 11th March 2016
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘UK law makers are not likely to ratify the creation of a new Unified Patent Court (UPC) until after the UK public votes on whether the country should remain a member of the EU, the UK government has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 24th February 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The ease with which businesses will be able to win interim injunctions to defend against rivals’ infringements of their patents will be influential in determining whether companies engage with the new Unified Patent Court (UPC).’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd February 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘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 secondary legislation at least for the time in which the UK remains a party to the UPC Agreement.’
NIPC Law, 22nd February 2016
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘The UK government is to legislate to bring greater consistency to laws concerning the communications intellectual property (IP) rights holders send to alleged infringers of their rights.’
OUT-LAW.com, 1st February 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The UK government has prepared legislation to give effect to EU legislation on the unitary patent and to the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which backs the creation of a new UPC for resolving disputes over new unitary patents.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st January 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A dispute over an unsuccessful start-up turns messy, but clears up a point of confusion over patent assignments.’
Technology Law Update, 14th January 2016
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘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)).’
NIPC Law, 9th December 2015
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘The Patents Court endeavours bring patent cases on for trial where possible within 12 months of the claim being issued. To this end, the following procedure will be adopted.’
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 10th December 2015
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘Disclosure of information relevant to an invention does not mean the invention cannot be patented as long as the patent application is filed later the same day, the High Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 1st December 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘This case note discusses the power of a judge of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court to make an extended civil restraint order under para 3.2 (1) (b).’
NIPC Law, 12th Ocotber 2015
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘According to drugs.com, pregabalin is an anti-epileptic drug which works by slowing down impulses in the brain that cause seizures. A European patent for the drug was granted to Warner-Lambert Co, LLC (“Warner-Lambert”)(now a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc.) under EP number 0 641 330. That patent expired on 17 May 2013 but was extended by a supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”) until 17 May 2018. That SPC was allowed to lapse on 14 Oct 2013 and Warner-Lambert’s data exclusivity in respect of the data used to obtain the marketing authorisation for prehabalin expired on 8 July 2014. Since then anybody has been free to make, import or sell pregabalin for treating epilepsy and generalized anxiety disorder in the United Kingdom and several companies including some of the parties to these proceedings have done just that.’
NIPC Law, 18th September 2015
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘Patents are powerful tools, but they only bite on the materials or methods described in their claims. Or do they? Two recent appeal decisions show that the monopoly owned by a patent-holder can spill out over the edges of the claims, making life uncertain for those trying to steer a way around them.’
Technology Law Update, 3rd July 2015
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘The way numerical ranges used to limit the scope of a patent claim should be interpreted has been clarified by the Court of Appeal in London.’
OUT-LAW.com, 25th June 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘What are the most common myths surrounding the laws of the European Union? We asked two experts, Phil Syrpis and Catherine Seville, to describe and combat some misconceptions. From the Maastricht Treaty to intellectual property law, here are some of the topics they addressed.’
OUP Blog, 17th June 2015
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘Not all patented inventions are high tech. The title of the patent in Everseal Stationery Products Ltd v Document Management Solutions Ltd. and Others [2015] EWHC 842 (IPEC) (1 April 2015) was “Mailer with self-adhesive closure”.’
NIPC Law, 5th May 2015
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘George Miller introduces leading experts from a wide variety of disciplines to discuss significant aspects of their respective fields in a series of accessible and stimulating discourses.George Miller introduces leading experts from a wide variety of disciplines to discuss significant aspects of their respective fields in a series of accessible and stimulating discourses.
Jeremy Phillips – Intellectual Property Consultant, Olswang, London; Professorial Fellow at the Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute. Editor of Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
An Honorary Research Fellow of the Intellectual Property Institute and Professorial Fellow, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, Professor Phillips has held positions in several leading academic institutions. He is the founder editor of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice and is also blogmeister of the IPKat and other weblogs.
In this podcast Jeremy outlines the field of IP law and how it was seen at the start of his intellectual property law career. Jeremy discusses how intellectual property evolved and grew to encompass many different features. He talks about how intellectual property interacts with the commercial world, including copyright in books and patents in pharmaceuticals, and how intellectual property law works in tandem with human rights law, and he also describes how the practical application of intellectual property works, and how human behaviour influences this.’
OUP Law Vox, 22nd March 2015
Source: www.soundcloud.com/oupacademic
Source:
‘In Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment Inc v British Telecommunications Plc [2013] EWHC 3768 (Pat) (3 Dec 2013) the claimant sued the defendant telecommunications company for infringing two of its European patents:
EP 2,259,495 adaptive DSL margin and band control using historical operational data (“495”); and
EP 1,869,790 DSL state and line profile control (“790”).’
NIPC Law, 12th January 2015
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘In a surprise end-of-year appeal success Jarden has escaped the heat of SEB’s ‘dry fryer’ patent. The apparatus claimed by the patent allows a user to produce crispy chips without needing a pan full of hot fat.’
Technology Law Update, 8th January 2015
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024