NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Nicholas Caddick QC) Vernacare Ltd v Moulded Fibre Products Ltd.   [2022] EWHC  2197 (IPEC) This was an action for patent infringement.  It was brought by  Vernacare Limited ("Vernacare")  against  Moulded Fibre Products Limited (“MFP”).   Vernacare held the following UK patents:  GB 2446793 (“793”)   for a wash bowl. and  GB2439947 ("947")  for mouldable paper pulp composition.  It complained that a wash bowl marketed by WFP infringed both patents. WFP challenged the validity of those patents and denied that its wash bowl infringed 793.  The proceedings were tried by Nicholas Caddick QC (as he then was) sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division between 13 and 15 June 2022. He delivered judgment on 15 June 2022 (see  Vernacare Ltd v Moulded Fibre Products Ltd [2022] EWHC 2197 (IPEC))....

Author  Dori   Public Domain Source  Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court  (Mr Justice Mellor)  Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and another v Archos SA and others   [[2021] EWHC 1639 (Pat) (16 June 2021) The first claimant is the proprietor of European patents  2,254,259 ("259") and  1,903 689 ("689") . They are part of a portfolio called the "MCP Pool!" which the claimants have promised to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms.  The defendants are manufacturers of 4G mobile phones.  The claimants argued that the defendants required their licence in order to comply with the LTE (4G) standard concerned with the transmission of a scheduling request (SR) to request uplink resources. The defendants denied that those patents were essential for compliance with the patent and pleaded that the patents were invalid for lack of novelty and an inventive step.  They also alleged that 689 was bad for ad...

2D Structure of T ravoprost Author Vaccinationist     Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Meade)   Alcon Research LLC and other v Actavis Group PTC EHF and others [2021] EWHC 1026 (Pat) (23 April 2021) This was an action for relief for the infringement of European patent (UK) 1 920 764  which had expired in 2014 and a counterclaim for its revocation on grounds of anticipation , obviousness  and insufficiency .  The defendants admitted that their products would have infringed the patent had it been valid so these were effectively revocation proceedings.  A supplementary protection certificate  numbered  SPC/GB12/038  had been granted for  Travoprost  upon the expiry of the patent but the only issue that related to the SPC depended on the validity of the patent. The action and counterclaim came on for trial before Mr Justice Meade between 16 and 22 March 2021 and his lordship delivered ju...

By John Schmidt - en:Image:Sequencing.jpg, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1584721   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss)  Illumina Cambridge Ltd v Latvia MGI Tech SIA and others [2021] EWHC 57 (Pat) (20 Jan 2021) This was an action for patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation.  The defendants, referred to collectively as "MGI" , wish to sell  DNA sequencing systems in the UK.  The claimant,  Illumina Cambridge Ltd ("Illumina")  contended that 4 of those systems infringed its patents. MGI denied infringement and alleged that the patents were invalid for obviousness, insufficiency and added matter, The action and counterclaim came on for trial before Mr Justice Birss on  9  to  13 , 16 to  20 , 25 , 26  Nov and 9  Dec 2020.  Judgment was delivered on 20 Jan 2021 (see Illumina Cambridge Ltd v Latvia MGI Tech SIA and others [2021] EWHC 57 (Pat) (20 Jan 2021). T...