‘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
‘The European Commission’s controversial infringement decision relating to ‘pay for delay’ pharmaceutical patent settlements is subject to a further challenge.’
Zenith Chambers, 23rd December 2014
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘In Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA and Another [2014] EWHC 445 (Pat) (28 Feb 2014) Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd (“Jarden”) sued SEB SA (“SEB”) for the revocation of its European patent number 2.085,003 (“the patent”) for deep fryer with automatic fat coating. SEB counterclaimed for infringement of the patent by importing and selling the Breville Halo Health fryer. The action came on for trial before Mr Justice Arnold who found that 3 of the claims of the patent were invalid but 3 others were valid and had been infringed. Jarden appealed against the judge’s construction of the patent and his finding of infringement. The appeal was heard by Lord Justices Vos and Burnett and Sir Timothy Lloyd in Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA and Another [2014] EWCA Civ 1629 (17 Dec 2014).’
NIPC Law, 1st January 2015
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘Pharmaceutical companies stand to lose patent monopolies that cover a number of individual compounds within a broader chemical formula if they cannot show a plausible link between the compounds covered by the patent and a technical contribution to treatment claimed in the patent, the High Court has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th December 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Advocate General Wathelet has delivered his opinion on a reference from the Regional Court of
Dusseldorf for a preliminary ruling on issues concerning the application of Article 102 TFEU to the
enforcement of standard essential patents (SEPs) using injunctions. The opinion, if followed by the
Court of Justice, will be important for future patent litigation and commercial negotiations over the
enforcement of SEPs.’
Zenith Chambers, 21st November 2014
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘Patents for computer programmes are not patentable in Europe. That seems like a simple statement. But a recent high level decision shows that it is far from simple to apply.’
Technology Law Update, 18th November 2014
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘Lantana Ltd. (“Lantana”) is a California company that offers communication cable services, telephone systems and services and computer and data network services mainly to customers in Southern California. One of the company’s employees invented a “method, systems, and computer program products for retrieving a file of machine readable data” for which Lantana applied for patents in the USA and around the world under the Patent Co-operation Treaty.’
NIPC Law, 17th November 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
Supreme Court, 29th October 2014
Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others [2014] UKSC 55; [2014] WLR (D) 452
‘Although acts which constituted “turpitude” for the purposes of giving rise to the defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio were not confined to criminal acts but included quasi criminal acts which engaged the public interest, civil wrongs which offended against private and not public interests did not give rise to the defence. Infringements of patent gave rise to private rights of a character no different from rights under contract or tort and there was no public policy which would give rise to a defence of ex turpi causa.’
WLR Daily, 29th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘As I indicated in How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 changes British Patent Law JD Supra 21 June 2014 s.16 of the Intellectual Property Act 2014 amends s.74A and s.74B of the Patents Act 1977 and inserts three new subsections into s.73. The upshot as explained in paragraph 4 and paragraph 5 of the IPO’s guide Expansion of the Patent Opinions Service: business guidance is that the range of questions upon which an examiner’s opinion can be obtained has been expanded and the Comptroller now has power to revoke patents which are found to be invalid.’
NIPC Law, 29th October 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘A legal principle designed to prevent businesses from profiteering from illegal acts does not apply if that profiteering would stem from infringing patent rights, the UK Supreme Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 30th October 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘It is unusual for a patent infringement case to be decided without a full trial. A judge will normally want to hear evidence from experts to understand what people working in the relevant field would have known at the time when the patent was first filed. Recent examples of this kind of analysis can be found in Virgin v Rovi (discussed here) and Teva v AstraZeneca.’
Technology Law Update, 20th October 2014
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘Keynote speech by Lord Justice Jackson at the Costs Law And Practice Conference on 30th September 2014.’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 30th September 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘As a number of new laws come into effect this week, we take a look at how your life will be affected.’
Daily Telegraph, 1st October 2014
Source: www.telegrpah.co.uk
‘On 14 May 2014 the Intellectual Property Bill received royal assent. The Act made some far reaching changes in patents, registered design and unregistered design right law which I summarized in “Reflections on the Intellectual Property Act 2014” 7 June 2014 4-5 IP Tech and discussed in detail in “How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 changes British Patent Law” 21 June 2014 JD Supra, “How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 changes British Registered Design Law” 19 June 2014 JD Supra and “How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 will change British Unregistered Design Right Law” 11 June 2014 JD Supra 11 June 2014. On 28 Aug 2014 Lady Neville-Rolfe, Minister for Intellectual Property, signed The Intellectual Property Act 2014 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2014 which will bring many of the provisions of the Act into force.’
NIPC Law, 6th September 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘S.39 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 provides:
“Notwithstanding anything in any rule of law, an invention made by an employee shall, as between him and his employer, be taken to belong to his employer for the purposes of this Act and all other purposes if –
(a) it was made in the course of the normal duties of the employee or in the course of duties falling outside his normal duties, but specifically assigned to him, and the circumstances in either case were such that an invention might reasonably be expected to result from the carrying out of his duties; or
(b) the invention was made in the course of the duties of the employee and, at the time of making the invention, because of the nature of his duties and the particular responsibilities arising from the nature of
his duties he had a special obligation to further the interests of the employer’s undertaking.”‘
NIPC Law, 2nd July 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘As I said in How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 changes British Patent Law 21 June 2014 JD Supra, the most important provision of the Intellectual Property Act 2014 is s.17 which inserts a new s.88A into the Patents Act 1977. That section confers power on the Secretary of State to make provision in the UK for the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court.’
NIPC Law, 25th June 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025