NIPC Law

London Court of International Arbitration Author Mar9254   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commmons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords justices Lewison, Popplewell and Birss) S3D Interactive Inc v Oovee Ltd [2022] WLR(D) 516, [2022] EWCA Civ 1665 This was an appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Butcher to enforce a peremptory order of an arbitrator under s.42 of the Arbitration Act 1996 notwithstanding the appellant's contention that the arbitration agreement had been repudiated. The parties managed to resolve their differences after the appeal was heard but before judgment was delivered.  Because of public interest in the issue, their lordships stated how they would have decided the appeal had it not been settled.  Arbitration In "What is Arbitration"  the World Intellectual Property Organization  defined arbitration as  "a procedure in which a dispute is submitted, by agreement of the parties, to one or more arbitrators who mak...

Author Paste   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0     Soutce Wikimedia   Jane Lambert intellectual Property Enterprise Court  (John Kimbell QC)  Photobooth Props Ltd and another v NEPBH Ltd and others    [2022] EWHC 750 (IPEC) (1 April 2022) These were interlocutory applications by both claimants and defendants in an action for copyright infringement and rescission of a contract. The works alleged to have been infringed were artwork for the panels on the outside of photo booths known as "skins". The claimants claimed copyright in works that had been made by one Lie Xie, a director of the second claimant, whch were referred to as "the new works" and works in which copyright was said to have been assigned to the second claimant by the first defendant known as "the assigned works". The claimants applied for summary judgment under CPR Part 24  of their copyright claim,  The defendants applied to strike out allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation in su...

Jane Lambert   Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor)  Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2826 (Pat) (22 Oct 2021) In Disclosure - Anan Kasei Co. Ltd v Neo Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) Ltd   I discussed a case in which Mr Justice Mellor refused to relax restrictions on highly confidential material that had been disclosed for external eyes only ("EEO").  EEO essentially means a party's solicitors and counsel but not the party itself.  In  Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2826 (Pat) (22 Oct 2021), the same judge reached an opposite decision even though he applied the same guidelines. The application for the relaxation of EEO restrictions was one of two applications by Huawei Technologies (UK) Ltd. ("HTUK"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Chinese telecommunications equipment giant, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The other application was for an order for the claimant, Godo ...