Case Reports

Antibody claims held sufficient, but how valuable will they be?

In the latest Eli Lilly v HGS ruling, the Court of Appeal has found HGS antibody claims to be sufficient, given the Supreme Court has already held the claims to be capable of industrial applicability.

SPCs for Antibodies: A CJEU reference probably but not immediately

The Patents Court has issued another judgment expressing dissatisfaction with the CJEU’s ruling in Medeva (C-322/10). In particular, the Court has held that in order to determine if a particular...

No way Round BMW’s rights – upgrade is not repair

A High Court decision last month has provided guidance on how Article 110(1) of the Community Designs Regulation 6/2002/EC, which relates to the protection of designs for component parts of complex...

Confusion in the marketplace: “Woolley” licences and misrepresentation

Woolley v Ultimate Products Ltd[2012] EWCA Civ 1038 (26 July 2012)Upholding a decision of the High Court, the Court of Appeal considered the effect of a licence, consumer confusion “the wrong way”...

Three new UK IPO decisions demonstrate the wide commercial applicability of registered designs

In the UK, applications to declare a UK registered design invalid can be filed at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), whereupon the case is decided by a Hearing Officer of the UKIPO acting...

Design right re-design – an opportunity for UK business to shape design protection to suit its needs

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) has recently published a consultation document on the proposed reform of the UK Designs Legal Framework.

Gimex v Chill Bag: does the indication of the product in a registered design affect validity and infringement?

A Patents County Court judgment by HHJ Birss QC in Gimex v Chill Bag provides guidance on whether the indication of the product in a registered design has any bearing when assessing validity and...

Adducing evidence of confusion in trademark actions – a further move towards tighter control of witness gathering exercises?

Interflora Inc & Anor v Marks and Spencer Plc & Anor [2012] EWHC 1722 (Ch)In a wider action concerning the alleged infringement of two of Interflora’s trademarks through Marks & Spencer’s use of...

Exceptions to the privilege of self-incrimination

On 4 July in Phillips v Mulcaire [2012] UKSC 28 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom gave judgment on two key issues regarding the privilege against self-incrimination.

Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser -Busch Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 880 (03 July 2012)

The Court of Appeal recently allowed an appeal by Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik (BB), against a decision that found its “Budweiser” mark invalid following an attack by Anheuser-Busch (AB) which...

Patentability of computer programs - High Court judgment gives rise to useful examples of a “technical effect”

(HTC Europe Co Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1789).A further decision in the so-called “smartphone wars” was issued by the High Court recently in relation to a patent dispute between HTC Europe Co Ltd...

IPKat: Further analysis of Generics (t/a Mylan) v Yeda and Teva

In addition to an earlier summary by Darren Smyth of the ruling in Generics (t/a Mylan) v Yeda and Teva, Darren has provided further analysis for the IPKat.

IPKat: Ruling in Generics (t/a Mylan) v Yeda and Teva

Today’s ruling by Mr Justice Arnold (Patents Court, England and Wales) in Generics (t/a Mylan) v Yeda and Teva has been summarised by Darren Smyth for the IPKat.

Samsung victorious in dispute with Apple over tablet computers

Samsung has won a longstanding battle with Apple concerning one of Apple's Registered Community Designs for its tablet computers.The decision is significant because it represents the first...

Confidential Information, In house lawyers and former employees – who has the burden of proof?

Generics (UK) Ltd v Yeda Research & Development Co Ltd & Teva Pharmaceutical Industries[2012] EWCA Civ 726The Court of Appeal has overturned an injunction that prevented an in-house patent attorney...