UK Supreme Court Upholds Jurisdiction to Set Global FRAND Licence Terms
Uk Supreme Court overturns Court of Appeal decisions on FRAND in ZTE and Huawei cases
Intellectual Property Expert Group
Intellectual Property Expert Group
Category UK patent litigation
If Patents Don’t Do It, File a Trade Secret Lawsuit
The patent fight between can hardly been escaped to anyone’s attention. The patent disputes involve both Standard Essential Patents as well as Implementation Patents. It involves FRAND and arguments about what qualifies as “fair and reasonable”. It involves the thorny…
UK Court invalidates claims to an enantiomer of a known racemate
In Generics (UK) Limited v. Novartis AG, the UK Patents Court (Mr Justice Floyd), in a challenge by Mylan (Generics UK), invalidated claims to an enantiomer of a known racemate[1]. The action came to trial very quickly, as the initial…
Texas Forum Shopping – Europe has its share as well
Part of any smart patent litigation strategy is to seek the right venue. This is true for Europe as well as for the US. Among practitioners it is known that Texas is a preferred venue for patent litigation in the…
Are UK Patent Courts Patentee Unfriendly?
Popular belief in patent litigation circles is that defendants, accused of a patent infringement like to turn to the UK courts to get the patent invalidated. The general presumption is that UK patent courts are skeptical of what comes out…
Independent Invention
Is “independent invention” a cure against trolls in that it can be argued that infringement cannot be established in case of an “independent invention”? No it is not. A lot of confusion, misunderstandings, half-truths, nonsensical quasi-lawerly talk exists around the…
Actavis vs Merck and Swiss Claims
We overlooked an interesting Note from Prof. Hal Wegner on UK Court of Appeal decision rendered in May 2008. In Actavis UK Ltd. v. Merck & Co. Inc., [2008] EWCA Civ 444 (Court of Appeal 2008) (Ward, Jacob, Rimer, JJ.),…
The Biogen test revisited
When is a product claim in a patent insufficient? That is the core question in the judgement of April 10 by the UK Court of Appeal in Generics (UK) Limited v Lundbeck A/S in an appeal against the High Court…
New chapter in UK saga of patenting computer programs
There has been another development in the continuing saga of the UK’s interpretation of what is and is not patentable subject matter in relation to computer programs.In Symbian’s Patent Application (Patents Court, 18 March 2008), Patten J overturned a decision…
Qualcomm vs. Nokia UK judgement
Today, the UK court (Mr. Justice Floyd) rendered its decision in the Qualcomm vs Nokia case. The case in the UK is slightly different than similar fights that take place in Netherlands and Germany in that Qualcomm is suing Nokia…
A great patent judge passes away
As blogger just learned, on Christmas Eve, one of Europe’s great patent judges, Lord Justice Pumfrey, passed away quite unexpectedly at the much too young an age of 56. He was the author of many judgements that changed the patent…
SanDisk Philips-Sisvel – Pumfrey J on jurisdiction
Further to our earlier post about the SanDisk vs. Philips judgement by Pumfrey J, here is a verbatim account on what the court contemplated about the question to what extent this case leaves open issues for the Court of Appeal…
SanDisk vs. Philips, mp3 litigation in the UK, J Pumfrey denies injunction
In a high profile legal battle on mp3 patents, UK Judge Pumfrey rendered its judgment in a request for interim injunction by SanDisk against Philips et al. The first four defendants (the patentees, registered in the Netherlands, France, France and…
The UK Blackberry case RIM vs Inpro
The UK Court of Appeal handed down a judgment on Wednesday 7 February in the UK “Blackberry”case, RIM v Inpro (Inpro is a technology licensing company or, some might say, a “troll”). As expected, the Court upheld the first instance…
UK and Dutch Court differ on validity of stents patent
On January 16th the UK Court of Appeal in Angiotech Pharm., Inc. v. Conor MedSystems Inc., [2007] EWCA Civ 5 (Jacob, L.J.) affirmed an invalidity ruling of critical claim 12 of Angiotech’s patent [2006] EWHC 260 (Pat) (Pumfrey, J.), while…
British Court of Appeal reviews business method and software patents
On October 27, the UK Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in two cases concerning the exclusions to patentability for business methods and computer programs under Article 52(2) and 52(3) of the EPC (s1(2) PA 1977), the first between…
UK Patent Office Preliminary analysis of responses to consultation on inventive step
Further to our earlier blogger on the UK Patent Office public consultation on the inventive step requirement in UK patent law, the Office published its preliminary analysis of the responses received to this public consultation in early August. Conclusions At…
Ever called “simply an unsatisfactory expert”? (Judge Pumfrey, UK)
Research in Motion UK Ltd v Inpro Licensing SARL Patents Court, Febr. 2, 2006. An interesting case on anticipation and enablement, patentable subject matter and some comments on when to use the “streamlined procedure” before the Patents Court in the…
UK Patent Office launches Consultation on Inventiveness
On Feb. 6 the UK Patent Office launched a consultation on the inventive step requirement in UK patent law. Responses from interested innovators, scientists, engineers, businesses and legal professionals are requested by 31 May 2006. What is the purpose of…
Another episode of rotary shaver wars
One of Philips marketing success stories is the Philishave, the shaver with the well known three heads. Philips filed a trademark for this shape, consisting of the overall shape of an inverted equilateral triangle with three heads sitting within a…