Publications

Introducing new alleged infringements after the trial on liability in patent cases: Case Comment

The High Court has confirmed that the Patents Court’s practice of allowing a claimant to introduce further alleged infringements at the damages inquiry is equally applicable to patent infringement actions in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court. Alternatively, it is not an abuse of process to commence additional proceedings in relation to alleged infringements of which the claimant was not actually aware at the time of a first action, even if it could or should have been aware of them. Read more…


Published in Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice

REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS v KYMAB & NOVO NORDISK: Case Comment

In a lengthy judgment, Carr J has invalidated the disputed claims of two of Regeneron’s patents relating to transgenic mice used for researching therapeutic antibodies.1 The judgment is of extraordinary technical complexity, and we shall not attempt to summarise it, nor to consider all the issues raised (many of which are highly fact-specific). Instead, we shall discuss three issues raised which are of general importance and significance in patent law. Read more…


Published in Bio-Science Law Review Vol. 15, Issue 3 (July 2016)

“Podium finish”: AP RACING v ALCON COMPONENTS: Case Comment

AP Racing has been awarded a record level of damages in the UK’s specialist Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), concluding almost five years of litigation between the parties in respect of Alcon’s manufacture and supply of calipers for the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR) market. Read more…


Published in Intellectual Property Magazine (March 2016)

FRESH TRADING v DEEPEND FRESH RECOVERY: Case Comment

A court ruled that Fresh Trading (the owner of the Innocent Smoothies brand of soft drinks) is the equitable owner of the copyright in ‘the Dude’ logo, despite the fact that it did not pay for it. The court considered issues of contractual construction, ownership and assignment of copyright under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (‘CDPA’), sections 90 and 91, and whether acquiescence, proprietary estoppel and/or laches prevented the copyright owner from asserting infringement of its rights. Kempner & Partners acted for the Defendants in this case. Read more…


Published in Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice Vol. 10, No. 7: 500-502 (June 2015)

WHITBY SPECIALIST VEHICLES v YORKSHIRE SPECIALIST VEHICLES: Case comment

This case concerned registered designs, UK unregistered design right (UKUDR) and registered trade marks in relation to ice cream vans. Although the legal issues considered were entirely conventional, the decision sets out a useful summary of the approach to deciding validity and infringement of registered designs and UKUDR. Read more…


Published in ITMA Review (May 2015)

WARNER-LAMBERT v ACTAVIS: What are the limits of Swiss form claims? Case comment

In a series of judgments which raise a number of novel and interesting legal points, Arnold J has dismissed Warner-Lambert’s application against Actavis for interim relief in respect of its second medical use patent covering the use of pregabalin for treatment of pain, but ordered a full trial and also ordered NHS England to issue guidance in relation to prescription of pregabalin. Read more…


Published in Bio-Science Law Review Vol. 14, Issue 3 (April 2015)

JUNITED AUTOGLAS DEUTSCHLAND v OHIM: Case comment

This case involved an appeal to the General Court by Junited Autoglas Deutschland Gmbh & Co KG (“Junited”) against a decision by the Board of Appeal, upholding an opposition by Belron Hungary Kft “Belron” to Junited’s application for a Community Trade Mark (CTM) for the mark UNITED AUTOGLAS. Junited argued that there was no likelihood of confusion with Belron’s Polish figurative mark AUTOGLASS, as the relevant public, the general public in Poland, would perceive the term “autoglas(s)” as descriptive, designating glass for automobiles and solely the figurative element of Belron’s mark warranted protection. The General Court held that, in trade mark opposition proceedings, a term will not be found to be descriptive to a foreign reader without evidence to back up the claim. Read more…


Published in ITMA Review (February 2015)