NIPC Law

Huawei's Head Office Author: Dr Bernd Gross Licence  Copyright waived by the owner Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Henry Carr)  Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and others   [2018] EWHC 808 (Pat) Although the precise relief sought in these proceedings is not mentioned in this judgment, it must have been a strike out or stay of a claim for patent infringement.  The applicants were the Chinese companies,  Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd . ("Huawei") and the ZTE Corporation  ("ZTE") and their respective British subsidiaries which are defendants to a claim by  Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L ("Conversant") for patent infringement. The patents alleged to have been infringed are part of a worldwide portfolio that Conversant has offered to license on FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms. I discussed such licences in FRAND   on   8 Oct 2017 and FRAND - a...

This is another case on Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters . The main issue was whether a claim in England for infringement of a European patent should be stayed while an application for a declaration of non-infringement proceeded in Sweden under art 27 (1) of that Regulation. It turned on whether the claim in England was between the same parties and involved the same subject matter as the proceedings in Sweden. The Applications In Mölnlycke Health Care AB and another v BSN Medical Ltd. and another [2009] EWHC 3370 (Pat) the defendants applied for a stay of the English proceedings because they had applied for declarations in the Stockholm district court that the patent in suit did not prevent them from marketing their Cutimed Siltec wound dressings in the UK. The claimants made a cross application for an interim injunction to restrain BSN from marketing that product until judgment or further ord...

Every so often a case comes along that is remembered for having something to say on more than one important issue. One such case was Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill & Smith Ltd. [1982] R.P.C 183 which is cited not just for Lord Diplock's speech on purposive construction of patent claims but also for the so called Catnic defence to copyright infringement. Another example is Occular Sciences Ltd v Aspect Visions Care Ltd [1997] RPC 289 which contributed to the law of confidence and design rights. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Lucasfilm Ltd. and Others v Ainsworth and Another [2009] EWCA Civ 1328 was such a case. The Lord Justices considered what constitutes a "sculpture" for the purposes of s.4 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 . whether the "design document" and/or the industrial process exceptions to copyright in s.51 and s.52 of the Act could apply, equitable title to commissioned works, whether there is such a thing as "extra E...