Skip to main content

Insights & News

Search for Insights & News

  • Putting a squeeze on patent licences

    20 June 2017

    The recent case of Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v UCB Pharma SA & Celltech R&D Ltd [2017] EWHC 216 (Pat)

  • Another purple patch for Trade Marks refused

    12 May 2017

    In Glaxo v Sandoz the Court of Appeal has confirmed the invalidity of a trade mark for two shades of the colour purple relating to asthma inhalers.

  • Advocate General’s Opinion – Uber provides a transport service not an information society service

    11 May 2017

    The Advocate General states the Uber is providing a transport service and it not acting as an electronic intermediary and providing an information society service. Uber therefore should have to comply with local laws for the licensing of taxi operators

  • Time to add more defendants?

    21 April 2017

    In a recent decision the Court of Appeal has had to decide whether a claim for accessory liability against various companies was time barred. Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd (t/a Allen & Hanburys) Anor v Sandoz Ltd & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 22.

  • Marathon Asset misses the jackpot again

    12 April 2017

    After being awarded only £2 in nominal damages in its breach of confidence case, Marathon Asset has been heavily penalised on costs after failing to accept the defendants’ Part 36 offer.

  • Court of Appeal confirms deterrent sentences for copyright infringement

    30 March 2017

    In Regina v Evans the Court of Appeal has provided guidance on the appropriate level of sentencing for criminal offences under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the sentence should have a deterrent effect.

  • It’s obvious, patents are not child’s play!

    28 March 2017

    In a recent decision the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court had to consider whether a patent for a children’s toy consisting of water soluble, fusible, translucent beads was merely an aesthetic creation, and therefore excluded from patentability and if not, whether the patent claims lacked an inventive step and were obvious. If the patent was valid, the Court also had to determine whether it was infringed by the Defendant’s product.

  • Bad timing for a counterclaim

    27 February 2017

    The provisions of section 35(3) of the Limitation Act 1980 will not enable a defendant to bring counterclaim that would otherwise be time barred before the proceedings had commenced.

  • Court considers service of a defendant’s notice to force claimant to serve proceedings or discontinue a claim

    14 February 2017

    A recent decision not only reminds practitioners of a defendant’s ability to force a claimant to either serve proceedings or discontinue a claim by using a CPR 7.7(1) notice, but also considers for the first time the date for compliance with such a notice.

  • Legal advice privilege: Not as wide as you think?

    08 February 2017

    Who is a lawyer’s client and what type of communications are protected for the purposes of legal advice privilege have been the subject of two recent important High Court decisions. These cases make it clear that not all communications between lawyers and a client’s employees will be protected by legal advice privilege, even if the communication took place to allow legal advice to be given.

  • Does a solicitor own the goodwill associated with their own name?

    01 February 2017

    In (1) Juthika Bhayani and (2) Bhayani Law Limited v Taylor Bracewell LLP this question was considered by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court.

Back To Top