Stem cell treatments threatened by European patents ruling – The Guardian

“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.”

Full story

The Guardian, 27th April 2011

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Ex-director given permanent ban on revealing confidential information – OUT-LAW.com

“A businessman has been ordered never to improperly reveal confidential information belonging to a company where he used to be a director.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 5th April 2011

Source: www.out-law.com

Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd and another – WLR Daily

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.

Proposed patent court not compatible with EU law, says ECJ – OUT-LAW.com

“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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 9th March 2011

Source: www.out-law.com

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Delta Air Lines Inc – WLR Daily

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 – WLR Daily

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.

Inventor entitled to share of employer’s actual, not potential patent earnings, says Court of Appeal – OUT-LAW.com

“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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 29th November 2010

Source: www.out-law.com

Government consults on case value ceiling for Patents County Court – 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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 1st November 2010

Source: www.out-law.com

Shanks v Unilever plc and others – WLR Daily

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.

Baylis urges change in patent law – BBC News

“One of Britain’s best-known inventors is urging a change in the law to strengthen protection against those who try to steal ideas.”

Full story

BBC News, 1st September 2009

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Plan to slash patent litigation costs would boost access to justice, say authors – OUT-LAW.com

“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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 4th August 2009

Source: www.out-law.com

A web page can be prior art without its authenticity being proved ‘up to the hilt’ – 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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 7th July 2009

Source: www.out-law.com

Aerotel Ltd v Wavecrest Group Enterprises Ltd and others – WLR Daily

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 – Times Law Reports

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

Dragons’ Den winner infringed own patent, IPO rules – OUT-LAW.com

“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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 16th March 2009

Source: www.out-law.com

Crucial patent law terms are not synonymous, House of Lords rules – 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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 27th February 2009

Source: www.out-law.com

Generics (UK) Ltd and others v H Lundbeck A/S – WLR Daily

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.

High Court awards inventors £1.5m for outstanding work – OUT-LAW.com

“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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 16th February 2009

Source: www.out-law.com

Kelly and another v GE Healthcare Ltd – WLR Daily

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.

Virgin Atlantic loses design rights and patent claims over flatbed seats – OUT-LAW.com

“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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 27th January 2009

Source: www.out-law.com

IPO sticks to four-step software patent test – 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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com,  18th December 2008

Source: www.out-law.com

Sir James Dyson in High Court attempt to see off rival vacuum design – Daily Telegraph

“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 – Times Law Reports

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 – WLR Daily

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.

European patent body will issue definitive ruling on software patents – OUT-LAW.com

“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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 28th October 2008

Source: www.out-law.com

Symbian Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks – Times Law Reports

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.

8 New Square victorious in software patent appeal – The Lawyer

“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.”

Full story

The Lawyer, 20th October 2008

Source: www.thelawyer.com

Symbian Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents – WLR Daily

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.

Court ruling strengthens patent protection for UK software – The Times

“Technology companies will find it easier to safeguard their innovations in the UK after a court ruled that software should receive wider patent protection.”

Full story

The Times, 8th October 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Activists plan day of protest against software patents – OUT-LAW.com

“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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 23rd September 2008

Source: www.out-law.com

High Court ruling attacks ‘bits of legal boilerplate, bolted together’ – 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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 11th September 2008

Source: www.out-law.com

UK-IPO asks if research exemption in patent law is too vague – 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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 9th July 2008

Source: www.out-law.com

Groundless patent threat over wine tap leads to Smurfit payout – 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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 30th June 2008

Source: www.out-law.com

Actavis UK Ltd v Merck and Co Inc – Times Law Reports

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 – Times Law Reports

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.

High Court says UK-IPO was wrong to reject software-related patent – OUT-LAW.com

“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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 18th March 2008

Source: www.out-law.com

Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd – Times Law Reports

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 – Times Law Reports

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.

UK-IPO changes software patent advice – OUT-LAW.com

“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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 12th February 2008

Source: www.out-law.com

Glaxo Group Ltd v Genentech Inc and another – WLR Daily

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 – WLR Daily

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 – WLR Daily

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.

High Court backs software patents – OUT-LAW.com

“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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 28th January 2008

Source: www.out-law.com

In re DLP Ltd – WLR Daily

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. 

Tech firms challenge software patent barrier in High Court – OUT-LAW.com

“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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 13th November 2007

Source: www.out-law.com

Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd v Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another – Times Law Reports

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.

Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd (Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks intervening) – WLR Daily

Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd (Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks intervening) [2007] UKHL 43

“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.

Consultation on fast track processing of Patents & Trade Marks – UK Intellectual Property Office

“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

UK and US offices team up to accelerate patent prosecution process – OUT-LAW.com

“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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 6th September 2007

Source: www.out-law.com

Raytheon Company v. Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks – WLR Daily

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.

Patent damages not refunded if EPO cancels patent – OUT-LAW.com

“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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 9th May 2007

Source: www.out-law.com