NIPC Law

Author  Ciencias Españolas  Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikipedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor)    Hill v Touchlight Genetics Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 533 (Pat) (08 March 2024) The High Court has power under s.70 (1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to call in the aid of one or more assessors specially qualified, and hear and dispose of the cause or matter wholly or partially with their assistance if it thinks it expedient to do so. Subsection (3) of the same section requires rules of court to make provision for the appointment of scientific advisers to assist the Patents Court in proceedings under the Patents Act 1977 and for regulating the functions of such advisers. S.70 is implemented by CPR 35.15 .  Para (2) of that rule mandates the assessor to assist the court in dealing with a matter in which the assessor has skill and experience. He or she is obliged by CPR 35. 15 (3) to take such part in the proceed...

Author Raysonho Licence CC 1,0     Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd and others (FRAND CMC Judgment ) [2021] EWHC 493 (Pat) (4 March 2021) This was an application for an order under Part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules requiring the 9th to 12th defendants ("the Xiaomi defendants") to answer the claimants; requests for further information of their statement of case.  The claimants had served over 100 requests upon the Xiaomi defendants on 12 Feb 2021 most of which those defendants had offered to answer by 16 March 2021. However, there were 2 requests that they refused to answer on the grounds that they were requests for expert evidence to which the claimants were not entitled until the exchange of experts' reports. At a case management conference before Mr Justice Mellor on 2 March 2021, the claimants applied for an order requiring the 9th to 12th defendants to answer all 100 ...

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Judge Melissa Clarke)  Ashley Wilde Group Ltd v BCPL Ltd [2019] EWHC 3166 (IPEC) (21 Nov2019) This was an action for infringement of copyright in a prototype for a bed linen range.  An example of a duvet cover from that range appears at the top of the above photo together with an example of the allegedly infringing item at the bottom. The claimant's product, known as "Evangeline" was sold as part of the "Kylie Minogue at Home" range even though the prototype had been made by one of the claimant's employees and not by Kylie Minogue.   The defendant's, called "Amore", was under the "Buy Caprice Home" brand even though it had been designed not by the Caprice in question (the celebrity Caprice Bourret) but by a freelance designer. In her judgment of 21 Nov 2019, Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke dismissed the claim on the ground that there had been no copying.  She ...

Manchester Civil Justice Centre Author Skip88  Reproduced with kind permission of the author Wikipedia   Jane Lambert The Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct and Protocol s has been updated with effect from 9 Oct 2019.  It was last updated on 29 April 2015 and I wrote about the changes in What to do about the new Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct on 6 May 2015.   I explained the importance of the Practice Direction in Pre-Action Correspondence - Not Just a Box to be ticked or a Hoop to be jumped through   2 Aug 2017. The updated Practice Direction contains the following paragraphs: Title Number Introduction Para. 1 Objectives of pre-action conduct and protocols Para. 3 Proportionality Para. 4 Steps before issuing a claim at court Para. 6 Experts Para. 7 Settlement and ADR Para. 8 Stocktake and list of issues Para. 12 Compliance with this practice direction and the protocols Para. 13 Limitation Para. 17 Prot...