NIPC Law

Photo   Maebmij   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Newey, Arnold and Birss)    Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and other s [2023] EWCA Civ 758 (4 July 2023) This was an appeal by Applie Inc and two of its subsidiaries ("Apple") against the judgment of Mr Justice Meade in    Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail Uk Ltd and others [2022] EWHC 561 (Pat) (15 March 2022) that European patents (UK)  2 187 549 B1  and 2 690 810 B1  were valid, essential to the LTE standard  and infringed by Apple.  The action before Mr Justice Meade was called "Trial D" because it was the last of a series of trials to determine whether a portfolio of patents that had been granted to Panasonic and subsequently assigned to the respondents were valid and essential to the LTE standard and whether they had been infringed.  To put this litigati...

Author Wags05  Licence Copyright waived by the Author   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Nugee and Birss and Lady Justice Laing)  Vestel Elektronik Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. and another v Access Advance LLC and another [2021] (26 March 2021) [2021] WLR(D) 178, [2021] EWCA Civ 440 Many of the tellies that are sold in this country under such brands as Toshiba, Hitachi, Telefunken and Panasonic are actually made in Turkey by  Vestel Elektronik Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S . and distributed by the Vestel group's British company Vestel UK Ltd.  In this article, "Vestel" refers to both Vestel companies.  Access Advance LLC  administers the HEVC patent pool.  HEVC is a video compression technology which is defined by the International Telecommunication Union H.265 recommendation. One of the members of that pool is Koninklijke Philips NV.  Vestel's Claim Vestel applied to Access Advance for a licence to use Philips's patents under Acces...

Jane Lambert Patents Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Vestel Elektronik Sanayi VE Ticaret AS and another v HEVC Advance LLC and another [2019] EWHC 2766 (Ch) (21 Oct 2019) This was an application for a declaration that the English Patents Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim by Vestel Elektronik Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.Ş  and its British subsidiary, Vestel UK Ltd against HEVC Advance LLC, a Delaware company that manages a pool of standard-essential patents ("SEP"), or Koninklijke Phillips NV ("Phillips") one of the SEP owners for relief from an alleged abuse of a dominant position under art 102  of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") and/or s.18  of the Competition Act 1998 by failing to offer licences under the SEP on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms.  The application came on before His Honour Judge Hacon sitting as a judge of the High Court on 2 and 3 Oct 2019.  Judgment was given on 2...

"So what is intellectual property ?" That is a question that I have been asked many times. By accountants and bank managers, clerks of factory chambers, instructing solicitors and even by fellow members of the Bar. Well now the Court of Appeal has provided an answer of sorts.   In  Coogan v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another [2012] EWCA Civ 48 (1 Feb 2012) the question was whether mobile telephone voice mail messages were "intellectual property" for the purpose of s.72 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Court of Appeal held that they were. The question arose in the context of the privilege against self-incrimination. Unlike the United States which safeguards this privilege by the Fifth Amendment of its Constitution, it subsists at common law (see Blunt v Park Lane Hotel Ltd [1942] 2 KB 253) and is reinforced by s.14 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968. But there are loads of exceptions to this rule as the Master of the Rolls noted at paragraph [16] of his ...