2014News & EventsLatest briefing notes, news and podcasts Will the public suffer? Let’s stay!A recent decision from the UK Court of Appeal in Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment Inc. v British Telecommunications Plc. has shown that the UK courts are prepared to impose injunctions on big telecoms operators, but that in doing so consideration may well be given to the effect an injunction will have on the public.Read More 18Dec2014 It all depends on the factsThe UK Court of Appeal recently issued a judgment in Lantana Ltd’s application which provides a useful summary of tests for excluded subject matter in the UK set out in previous cases. However, the judgment does little to clarify what continues to be a rather opaque and fact-specific area of the law.Read More 04Dec2014 A sting in the tail of the UK Intellectual Property Office’s new opinions serviceThe UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO)’s opinions service has been given more substance, and the Office has been given the power to revoke patents in certain situations. Since the request for an opinion by a third party is likely to grab the attention of the patentee, what opportunities does this new service provide?Read More 27Nov2014 EU proposes reining in the rights of holders of Standard Essential Patents.Advocate General issues his opinion in Huawei v ZTE in its referral to the Court of Justice.Read More 25Nov2014 The IPEC leaves its cap onThe caps that are in place for the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), formerly known as the Patents County Court (PCC), provide claimants and defendants alike with certainty with regard to damages/account of profits and orders in relation to costs. This case (Abbott and another v Design & Display Ltd and another [2014] EWHC 3234 (IPEC)) focussed on how the cap relating to awards of damages/account of profits should be applied in actions involving more than one defendant.Read More 20Nov2014 UK court decides milk bottle patent case without trialUK courts have the power to dispose of all or part of a case without a trial if there is no real prospect of success. In a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal, the defendant in the patent case of Nampak Plastics Europe Limited and Alpha UK Limited has successfully made use of these powers, receiving a favourable declaration of non-infringement from the High Court without the need for a trial.Read More 06Nov2014 Second medical use claims for devices – an uneven playing field?European patent law offers extra protection for pharmaceuticals that is not available for medical devices. Second medical use claims for pharmaceuticals are routinely accepted in Europe, whereas the same style of claim is generally not permissible for medical devices. Recent case law has seen a shift towards rewarding new uses for existing medical devices, but achieving such protection requires care during prosecution.Read More 30Oct2014 IP Act 2014 – Changes to UK designs law come into forceIn an earlier briefing note, we summarised the main changes to UK law introduced by the Intellectual Property Act 2014. A number of these changes come into effect today (1st October 2014), including measures intended to modernise, simplify and strengthen the law relating to designs – an area of protection often overlooked by IP owners. This short article reviews some of the more significant changes to designs law brought about by provisions in the Act.Read More 01Oct2014 Extended protection for medical devices – a hot topic in the UKManufactures of medical devices are requesting an increasing number of patent term extensions in a bid to recover the cost of getting regulatory approval. Recent decisions show that the UK IPO is taking a strict approach when examining patent term extensions for medical devices, but there are still situations where extra protection might be available.Read More 21Aug2014 Patentable parthenotes? Advocate General says yesIn the latest development to the patentability of human stem cells, the AG has recommended that stem cells derived from parthenogenically activated oocytes should not be excluded from patentability any longer. The AG drew the distinction between totipotent and pluripotent cells, noting that cells that do not have the capacity to develop into a human being should not be excluded from patentability.Read More 31Jul20141234> ServiceProtectDealDisputeSectorLife SciencesChemistryMaterialsEngineeringTechCreativeType Briefing Notes News PodcastsArchive2022AugustJulyJuneMayAprilMarchFebruaryJanuary2021DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptemberAugustJulyJuneMayAprilMarchFebruaryJanuary2020DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptemberAugustJulyJuneMayAprilMarchFebruaryJanuary2019DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptemberAugustJulyJuneMayAprilMarchFebruaryJanuary2018DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptemberAugustJulyJuneMayAprilMarchFebruaryJanuary2017DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptemberAugustJulyJuneMayAprilMarchFebruaryJanuary2016DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptemberAugustJulyJuneMayAprilMarchFebruaryJanuary2015DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptemberAugustJulyJuneMayAprilMarchFebruaryJanuary2014DecemberNovemberOctoberAugustJulyJuneMayAprilMarchFebruaryJanuary2013DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptemberAugustJulyJuneMayAprilMarchJanuary2012NovemberJulyJuneMayAprilFebruaryJanuary2011DecemberNovember2010SeptemberJulyJanuary
