Patents and Designs: Cantel Medical (UK) Ltd v ARC Medical Design Ltd.

Jane Lambert

Patents Court (HH Judge Hacon): Cantel Medical (UK) Ltd and another v ARC Medical Design Ltd[2018] EWHC 345 (Pat)

This was a claim by Cantel Medical (UK) Ltd and Cantel (UK) Limited for the revocation or declarations of non-infringement of the following patents, registered Community designs ("RCD") and unregistered design rights:
European patent number 2 575 590 for a covering for a medical scoping device;UK patent number 2 478 081 for a covering for medical scoping device;RCD number 001856121-0001;RCD number 002523191-0001;the design right in the design on an attachment to a colonoscope known as the Endocuff; andthe design right in the design of another attachment known as the Endocuff Vision.ARC Medical Design Ltd., which is the registered proprietor of those patents and RCD and the owner of the design rights, counterclaimed for the usual remedies for infringement of those rights.
The Endocuff and Endocuff Vision The Endocuff and Endocuff Vision are plastic cuffs…

Brexit Briefing - February 2018

This month's Brexit briefing focuses on the publication by the European Commission of a draft agreement for the withdrawal of the UK from the EU and the Euratom. Although it has not yet been presented to the British government and there has already been some grumbling from the PM and others it is unlikely to be rejected out of hand.
There were some welcome signs of pragmatism in the PM's speech at the Mansion House on 2 March 2018.
There were also some crumbs of comfort for the ratification of the UPC Agreement and perhaps even continued British participation in the Court after Brexit. Read more

Inventors Club: Free Digital Skills Training and Coaching from at a Google Digital Garage and Trevor Baylis

Inventors, entrepreneurs and others setting up in business can obtain free digital training online or from a Google Digital Garage in Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield. Yesterday I visited the Google Digital Garage in Manchester and wrote about it in Visit to Manchester's Google Digital Garage6 March 2018 IP North West.

Yesterday was also the death of the well-known inventor, Trevor Baylis CBE. Commiserations to his family, friends and connections.

Patents - The First Case to Apply Eli Lilly v Actavis: Mylan v Yeda

Patents Court (Mr Justice Arnold): Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) and another v Yeda Research And Development Company Ltd [2017] EWHC 2629 (Pat) (26 Oct 2017)

On Wednesday, 28 Feb 2018 I gave a talk to the C5 Pharma and Patent Litigation Conferenceat the Radisson Blu Hotel in Amsterdam. Mine was one of three talks on the topic Infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents.  I discussed the law of England in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and others [2017] UKSC 48, [2017] Bus LR 1731 while Paul Reeskamp and Philipp Cepl, who practise in the Netherlands and Germany, considered the topic in the light of the developing case law in their jurisdictions. I had previously written about the Supreme Court's judgment in The Supreme Court's Judgment in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and Others: how to understand it and why it is important13 July 2017.

Possibly because Lord Neuberger said that his approach to the construction of the patent claims com…

ASIN Numbers and Trade Marks - Birlea Furniture v Platinum

Jane Lambert

Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Judge Melissa Clarke)Birlea Furniture Ltd v Platinum Enterprise (UK) Ltd and another [2018] EWHC 26 (IPEC) (11 Jan 2018) 

Sites like Amazon offer unparalleled opportunities to both suppliers and consumers. To suppliers they offer a massive worldwide market that they could never access in any other way. Conversely, they offer consumers a wider choice of suppliers than would otherwise be available thereby enabling them to source products at the optimum price.

Sellers are allocated a unique identifier which Amazon calls an ASIN ("Amazon Standard Identification Number"). Such identifier allows consumers to specify the goods they need and identify the businesses that supply them. That's fine so long as the ASIN is used by the same supplier, the goods are from the same source or are fungible. However, difficulty can arise when a supplier seeks to brand goods to be supplied under someone else's identifier.

In Birlea Furnitu…

Transposing the Trade Secrets Directive into English Law: Confidentiality Agreements

Jane Lambert

Patents subsist for 20 years, copyrights for the life of the author plus 70 years but the obligation neither to disclose nor make use of business or technical information that is disclosed in confidence can last indefinitely.  The recipe for Chartreuse is a case in point.  That distinctive liqueur has been emulated and occasionally counterfeited but never replicated.

All members of the World Trade Organization are obliged to protect undisclosed information from unauthorized use and disclosure by art 39 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS") but different countries including different EU member states discharge that obligation in different ways. Such differences affect the functioning of the internal market.  To minimize those differences the European Council adopted the trade secrets directive (Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-ho…

What, if anything, can be salvaged from the UPC Agreement?

Jane Lambert

On 12 Feb 2018 I shall address a seminar entitled the Implications of Brexit on Intellectual Property Law which will be hosted by Queen Mary University of London Centre for Commercial Law Studies at 67-69 Lincoln's Inn Fields (see Jane Lambert Implications of Brexit on Intellectual Property Law19 Jan 2018 NIPC News). The topic that I have chosen is "What if anything can be salvaged from the Unified Patent Court Agreement?"

The reason I have chosen that topic is that it seems increasingly unlikely that the Unified Patent Court ("UPC") will open its doors before 23:00 on 29 March 2019 which is "exit day" within the meaning of clause 14 (1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (HL Bill 79).

I say that for two reasons.

The first is that art 89 (1) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court provides that that agreement will come into force "the first day of the fourth month after the deposit of the thirteenth instrument of ratification…