NIPC Law

Eli Lilly & Co.'s factory in Indianapolis in 1862 Author Eli Lilly & Co. Source Wikipedia Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Roger Wyand QC) Eli Lilly and Co. v Genentech, In c [2020] EWHC 261 (Pat) (14 Feb 2020) This was the trial of a preliminary issue and application for summary judgment in Eli Lilly and Co.'s claim for revocation of Genentech Inc.'s European patent  (UK) EP2784084  for Antagonist antibodies to il-17a/f heterologous polypeptides.  Genentech alleged that the patent was valid and that Eli Lilly had infringed it and counterclaimed for the usual remedies for patent infringement.  The action and counterclaim came on before Mr Roger Wyand QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 28 and 29 Jan 2020 and he delivered judgment in  Eli Lilly and Co. v Genentech, In c [2020] EWHC 261 on St. Valentine's day. The preliminary issue was whether certain matters were res judicata by reason of Mr Justice Arnold's decision in Eli Lill...

Jane Lambert Chancery Division (HH Judge Hacon)  Bentley 1962 Ltd and another v Bentley Motors Ltd [2019] EWHC 2925 (Ch) (1 Nov 2019) This was a claim for trade mark infringement against the well-known luxury car manufacturer, Bentley Motors Ltd.  The first claimant is the registered proprietor of UK trade mark numbers, 1180215 (the "lozenge mark"),  2177779A (the "series mark") and  2505233  (the "word mark"). The second defendant is its exclusive licensee,  They alleged that Bentley Motors had infringed those trade marks by selling clothing under the following sign ("the combination sign"). The action came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon sitting as a judge of the High Court.  The judge tried the action between 2 and 5 July 2019 and delivered judgment on 1 Nov 2019 (see  Bentley 1962 Ltd and another v Bentley Motors Ltd  [2019] EWHC 2925 (Ch) (1 Nov 2019)).   At paragraph [165] of his judgment, ...

In  Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment Inc v British Telecommunications Plc [2013] EWHC 3768 (Pat) (3 Dec 2013)  the claimant  sued the defendant telecommunications company for infringing two of its European patents: EP 2,259,495 adaptive DSL margin and band control using historical operational data ( "495" ); and EP 1,869,790 DSL state and line profile control ( "790" ). Mr Justice Birss held that 495 was valid but had not been infringed and that 790 was valid and had been infringed. Both sides appealed to the Court of Appeal. In  Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment Inc v British Telecommunications Plc [2014] EWCA Civ 1462 (11 Nov 2014) the Court of Appeal allowed the claimant's appeal against the finding of non-infringement of 495 and dismissed the defendant's appeal against the finding of infringement of 790. Following Mr Justice Birss's judgment BT attempted a redesign by replacing  loop software with an equation. BT...

In Evans and another v Focal Point Fires Plc [2009] EWHC 2794 Mr. Justice Peter Smith granted summary judgment to the claimants in a claim for passing off. The claimants, who had sold fire surrounds in partnership under the name "Firecraft" since 1991, sued one of the UK's largest manufacturers of gas fires for marketing its products under the registered trade mark FIRECRAFT since May 2001. The basis of the judge's decision was that the issue of passing off had already been determined in the Trade Marks Registry of the IP Office by the hearing officer, Mr. James, on behalf of the Registrar in invalidation proceedings. By his decision of 18 Nov 2008 Mr. James declared the registration invalid under s.47 (2) (b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 on the ground that the claimants had an "earlier right" within the meaning of s.5 (4) (a) of the Act. That sub-section  provides: "A trade mark shall not be registered if, or to the extent that, its use in the Un...