“Work on revolutionary medical treatments for incurable diseases is in danger of being wiped out by a European court ruling on embryonic stem cells, according to leading scientists.”
The Guardian, 27th April 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
from the Inner Temple Library
“Work on revolutionary medical treatments for incurable diseases is in danger of being wiped out by a European court ruling on embryonic stem cells, according to leading scientists.”
The Guardian, 27th April 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A businessman has been ordered never to improperly reveal confidential information belonging to a company where he used to be a director.”
OUT-LAW.com, 5th April 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd and another [2011] EWCA Civ 303; [2011] WLR (D) 115
“Where an invention was a product and one asked, for the purposes of section 60(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977, whether a party had been ‘making’ a product, it was not appropriate to have regard to a ‘whole inventive concept’ test.”
WLR Daily, 29th March 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has said that the planned creation of a pan-European Patent Court would break EU law. The European Commission has said that the ECJ opinion will not affect a second EU patent plan.”
OUT-LAW.com, 9th March 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Delta Air Lines Inc [2011] EWCA Civ 162; [2011] WLR (D) 60
“Notwithstanding the difficulties which could arise in cases where the technology was complex, it should not be assumed that summary judgment was not for patent disputes; the general rules as to summary judgment applied equally to patent cases as to other types of case and where the technology was relatively simple to understand, and the court was able, on summary application, to form a confident view about the claim and its construction, in particular about the understanding of the man skilled in the art, there was no good reason why summary procedure could not be invoked.”
WLR Daily, 25th February 2011
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Shanks v Unilever plc and others [2010] EWCA Civ 1283; [2010] WLR (D) 300
“‘That person’ in s 41(2) of the Patents Act 1977 meant the actual assignee with its actual attributes rather than a notional non-connected counterparty operating in the appropriate market at the appropriate time.”
WLR Daily, 26th November 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The inventor of a medical device is entitled to a ‘fair share’ of the actual benefit earned from that device by his employer, the Court of Appeal has ruled. An inventor cannot complain if his employer did not exploit the invention well or at all, it said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 29th November 2010
Source: www.out-law.com
“The Government has published a proposal to limit the value of cases that can be heard by the Patents County Court (PCC) to £500,000. It hopes that the move will reduce the cost of intellectual property (IP) litigation for most companies.”
OUT-LAW.com, 1st November 2010
Source: www.out-law.com
Shanks v Unilever plc and others [2009] EWHC 3164 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 354
“The words ‘that person’ in s 41(2) of the Patents Act 1977 referred to a notional non-connected counterparty operating in the appropriate market at the appropriate time.”
WLR Daily, 4th December 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“One of Britain’s best-known inventors is urging a change in the law to strengthen protection against those who try to steal ideas.”
BBC News, 1st September 2009
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“A plan to cut the cost of litigating over patent infringements by a factor of ten has been submitted to a review of litigation costs in England and Wales. The plan proposes cutting the cost of action from between £500,000 and £1 million to £50,000.”
OUT-LAW.com, 4th August 2009
Source: www.out-law.com
“An online news story that described a bank’s method for authenticating website visitors was valid evidence of prior art, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has ruled. The date on the web page could be taken at face value, it said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 7th July 2009
Source: www.out-law.com
Aerotel Ltd v Wavecrest Group Enterprises Ltd and others [2009] EWCA Civ 408; [2009] WLR (D) 171
“A patentee seeking to rely on commercial success as an indicator of non-obviousness in order to rebut an allegation of its patent being obvious over prior art had to establish that the commercial success relied on was due to his invention and not to other market factors. Where a number of other factors might have explained the success, unless he could show they were irrelevant or largely so, he would not have proved what he needed to rebut the allegation. The evidential onus of proof was on him, and the party making the allegation was not required to show that the commercial success was due to other factors.”
WLR Daily, 21st May 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Kelly and Another v GE Healthcare Ltd
Chancery Division
“Compensation for employed inventors of inventions of outstanding benefit to the employer should be determined after the event, not before, in accordance with all available evidence so as to secure a just and fair reward to the employee.”
The Times, 3rd April 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“A man whose invention caught the attention of millions of television viewers may have infringed a patent he applied for himself 10 years ago. A contestant on the Dragons’ Den TV programme may have to defend his invention from legal action.”
OUT-LAW.com, 16th March 2009
Source: www.out-law.com
“Two concepts at the heart of patent law are not synonymous, the House of Lords has ruled. The judgment in a dispute over anti-depressant medicines is likely to clarify a complex point of patent law.”
OUT-LAW.com, 27th February 2009
Source: www.out-law.com
Generics (UK) Ltd and others v H Lundbeck A/S [2009] WLR (D) 68
“A claim for revocation on the ground of insufficiency of a patent in which claims 1 and 3 were to a product consisting of a single chemical compound and claim 6 was to a process for preparing it failed.”
WLR Daily, 25th February 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Two researchers have been awarded £1.5 million under a little-used section of patent law which allows employees extra compensation for inventions which are of “outstanding benefit” to employers.”
OUT-LAW.com, 16th February 2009
Source: www.out-law.com
Kelly and another v GE Healthcare Ltd [2009] EWHC 181 (Pat); [2009] WLR (D) 50
“Compensation of employees for certain inventions pursuant to s 40 of the Patents Act 1977 was not restricted to remedying some loss. Compensation for an invention of ‘outstanding benefit’ was to be determined in accordance with all available evidence, as per s 41 of the 1977 Act, so as to secure a just and fair reward to the employee, neither limiting the employee to compensation for loss or damage, nor placing the employee in as strong a position as an external patentee or licensor.”
WLR Daily, 12th February 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Airline Virgin Atlantic has lost its claim that a rival airline’s seat infringed its intellectual property rights. Virgin Atlantic’s patent design rights were not infringed by a design produced by Virgin’s seat design contractor for a rival, the High Court said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 27th January 2009
Source: www.out-law.com
“The UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) will still use a previously formulated test on software patents despite a court ruling which many took to be critical of its approach.”
OUT-LAW.com, 18th December 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
“The tycoon Sir James Dyson, whose trademark ‘double cyclone’ vacuum cleaner has become a world beater, has gone to the High Court to try to block a rival design from Samsung Electronics.”
Full story
Daily Telegraph, 10th December 2008
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Blacklight Power v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
Chancery Division
“The correct standard of proof for establishing patentability was the balance of probabilities.”
The Times, 10th December 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Blacklight Power Inc v Comptroller-General of Patents [2008] EWHC 2763 (Pat); [2008] WLR (D) 360
“The correct standard of proof that an applicant was required to satisfy to establish patentability was the balance of probabilities.”
WLR Daily, 19th November 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The European Patent Office (EPO) has asked its ultimate legal authority to look at the European Patent Convention (EPC) and issue advice on the patentability of software. The EPO said that such advice was necessary to ensure the uniform application of the EPC.”
OUT-LAW.com, 28th October 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
Symbian Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Court of Appeal
“A method of accessing data in a dynamic link library in a computing device was not excluded by reason of being a computer program from registration as a patent as it imvolved a technical contribution which would enable computers to work faster and more reliably.”
The Times, 28th October 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“IP chambers 8 New Square has scored a Court of Appeal win for technology company Symbian, in a decision that could see software patents allowed in the UK for the first time.”
The Lawyer, 20th October 2008
Source: www.thelawyer.com
Symbian Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents [2008] EWCA Civ 1066; [2008] WLR (D) 310
“A patent application concerning a method of accessing data in a dynamic link library in a computing device was not excluded from registration under s 1(2)(c) of the Patents Act 1977 on the ground that it related to a computer program ‘as such’, since it involved a technical contribution to the prior art which would enable computers and related devices to work faster and more reliably.”
WLR Daily, 9th October 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Technology companies will find it easier to safeguard their innovations in the UK after a court ruled that software should receive wider patent protection.”
The Times, 8th October 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“Activists have declared tomorrow ‘Stop Software Patents Day’. The day is being held on the fifth anniversary of a European Parliament decision to limit patent law in a way that campaigners say benefited small software developers.”
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd September 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
“A court has attacked lawyers who let word processors do their thinking for them. Standard paragraphs are being bolted together to make nonsensical agreements, said a High Court ruling on Friday.”
OUT-LAW.com, 11th September 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
“The UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) will attempt to clear up uncertainty and doubt about an exception to patent law for researchers, moving to end a lack of clarity about which acts are illegal and which are allowed.”
OUT-LAW.com, 9th July 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
“Packaging firm Smurfit must pay a rival damages because it made groundless threats about a patent infringement lawsuit to one of its rival’s customers.”
OUT-LAW.com, 30th June 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
Actavis UK Ltd v Merck and Co Inc
Court of Appeal
“Unlike human rights law, where the Court of Appeal had to refer to the House of Lords a case involving a decision of the European Court of Human Rights which conflicted with an earlier Court of Appeal decision, since patent law was much more specialist than human rights law, the Court of Appeal was free to depart from its own previous decision where it was satisfied that the European Patent Office Boards of Appeal had formed a settled view of European patent law which was inconsistent with that earlier decision.”
The Times, 5th June 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Kapur v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
Chancery Division
“The exclusion within section 1(2)(c) of the Patents Act 1977 stating that schemes rules and methods for performing mental acts were not to be regarded as inventions should be construed narrowly. What should be considered was whether a claim actually covered a purely mental implementation of a claimed invention.”
The Times, 3rd June 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“The High Court has overturned a decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) to reject a patent application as being nothing more than software. The UK-IPO said that today’s ruling is incompatible with other decisions and will appeal.”
OUT-LAW.com, 18th March 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd
Court of Appeal
“Perjury by a witness who had common cause with one of the parties in proceedings could be sufficient to have the judgment set aside as having been obtained by fraud.”
The Times, 29th February 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Glaxo Group Ltd v Genentech Inc and Another
Court of Appeal
“The approach to a stay in European patent cases differed from a stay in ordinary commercial litigation because the possibility of parallel validity proceedings in national courts and in the European Patent Office was inherent in the legal arrangements in the European Patent Convention.”
The Times, 21st February 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“The UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) will not appeal against a High Court ruling that some computer programs can be patented. It has amended its guidance to firms on the controversial issue.”
OUT-LAW.com, 12th February 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
Glaxo Group Ltd v Genentech Inc and another [2008] EWCA Civ 23; [2008] WLR (D) 21
“The approach to a stay in European patent cases differed from a stay in ordinary commercial litigation because the possibility of parallel validity proceedings in national courts and in the European Patent Office was inherent in the legal arrangements in the Convention under which the EPO was established.”
WLR Daily, 31st January 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 9; [2008] WLR (D) 19
“Where an inventor who gave perjured evidence at the trial of his employer’s application for a patent had been more than a mere witness in those proceedings, his fraud should be treated as his employer’s fraud for the purposes of the fraud exception to the doctrine of res judicata.”
WLR Daily, 31st January 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
In re Astron Clinica Ltd and others [2008] EWHC 85 (Pat); [2008] WLR (D) 12
“Claims to computer programs were not necessarily excluded from patentability by art 52 of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents 1973. Where claims to a method performed by running a suitably programmed computer or to a computer programmed to carry out the method were allowable, then, in principle, a claim to the program itself should be allowable.”
WLR Daily, 28th January 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Some software can be patented in the UK and the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) is wrongly rejecting applications, according to a new ruling in the High Court. The UKIPO is considering appealing against the verdict.”
OUT-LAW.com, 28th January 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
In re DLP Ltd [2007] EWHC 2669 (Pat)
“It was the intention of s 74B of the Patents Act 1977 and r 77K of the Patents Rules 1995 that an appeal should lie as of right where it related to part of an opinion issued by the Comptroller, pursuant to s 74A of the Patents Act 1977, which had not been set aside by a hearing officer on review.”
WLR Daily, 20th November 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Four small technology companies will challenge recent guidance from the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) in the High Court next week. It states that few claims to computer programs for carrying out patentable methods are eligible for patenting.”
OUT-LAW.com, 13th November 2007
Source: www.out-law.com
Patent amendment is not making a different claim
Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd v Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another
House of Lords
“When a reference was made under section 37(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 for joint ownership of a patent and the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks was seised of the matter, an amendment to claim sole ownership of the patent did not amount to the making of a new or different claim.”
The Times, 30th October 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“When a reference pursuant to s 37(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 for joint ownership of a patent had been made and the Comptroller of Patents Designs and Trademarks was seised of the matter, an amendment so as to claim sole ownership of the patent did not amount to the making of a new or different claim which was outside the limitation period.”
WLR Daily, 24th October 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The Gowers Report on Intellectual Property recommended that the UK Intellectual Property Office provide new accelerated services for processing patent and trade mark applications. We have considered these recommendations and are now consulting on proposed new fast track services for patents and trade marks, both of which will be available to all applicants upon payment of a fee.”
Consultation Document (pdf and Word)
UK Intellectual Property Office, 21st September 2007
Source: www.ipo.gov.uk
“The US and UK patent offices have agreed to share and recognise each other’s patent examination reports under a new deal. The offices hope that the deal could save significant application time for would-be patent holders.”
OUT-LAW.com, 6th September 2007
Source: www.out-law.com
Raytheon Company v. Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2007] EWHC 1230 (Pat)
“The court had a discretion to allow the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks to raise objections on appeal that had not been maintained before a hearing officer determining whether to grant a patent.”
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Damages for patent infringement awarded by a UK court must not be paid back even if the patent is later declared invalid by the European Patent Office (EPO), the Court of Appeal has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 9th May 2007
Source: www.out-law.com