Edward Cronan

2020 Round-Up Part 2: PRS v Qatar Airways … & FRAND?

This is Part 2 in a brief round up of IP decisions of interest in the English courts in the second half of 2020. See Part One here.

This post uses the decision of Birss J in Performing Right Society Ltd v Qatar Airways Group QCS [2020] EWHC 1872 (Ch) (17 July 2020) to provide an example as to how the court may approach the issue of forum conveniens in FRAND cases following Unwired Planet.

PRS’ claim relates to the alleged use of the its music catalogue on international flights operated by Qatar Airways. The decision arises in the context of a challenge by Qatar Airways to the jurisdiction of the English court.… Read more...

2020 Round-Up Part 1: BMW v Premier Alloys

This year the blog has really lived up to its billing of ‘occasional’ thoughts on UK IP law and procedure. After a string of posts early in the year providing summaries of various recent decisions things have been a bit barren on here:

January Edition

March Edition

April Edition

There’s no time like the present to try and make amends. Over the next week I will be producing a round up of some cases of interest in UK IP, with a focus on cases for which you haven’t already had hundreds of webinars and ‘legal update alerts’.

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Premier Alloy Wheels (UK) Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 2094 (Pat) (30 July 2020)

This decision by Recorder Douglas Campbell QC is of interest for its discussion on the scope of injunctive relief.… Read more...

The UK’s Unwired Planet

Earlier today the Supreme Court handed down judgment in the joined appeals known to most of us as Unwired Planet v Huawei. The unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, handed down over video by Lord Hodge, commended Justice Birss for an impressive first instance decision, and upheld the court of appeal on every issue.

On 27 August 2020 at 4pm myself, Ben Longstaff and Nick Zweck will be hosting a webinar to give a first response to the Unwired Planet judgment. The plan is to consider which FRAND issues the Supreme Court’s decision has resolved, look at what remains to be decided, and address the consequences of the decision for UK intellectual property practitioners.… Read more...

JIPLP Webinars

The Oxford Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice is hosting a series of webinars to coincide with the publication of its 2019 IP roundups.

Each webinar covers a different topic such as CJEU copyright decisions, EU trade marks decisions or UK patents decisions. For full details see here.

I am very fortunate to be speaking alongside Trevor Cook of Wilmer Hale, in the UK Patents webinar on Wednesday 13 May at 2pm. Please do come along. Sign up details are on eventbrite here. In addition to the reported cases of 2019 we may stray into some of the recent cases of 2020 (which are probably more interesting).… Read more...

April 2020: Recent Decisions in the Patents Court

It’s time again for a roundup of some recent decisions in the Patents Court, with the added bonus of one or two decisions from the Court of Appeal. Today we have refrigerators, HIV medication, heart valves and beer:

Mexichem UK Ltd v Honeywell International Inc [2020] EWCA Civ 473 (01 April 2020) on breadth of declarations.
Genentech Inc. v The Comptroller General of Patents [2020] EWCA Civ 475 (31 March 2020) on the scheme for payment of SPC fees.
Master Data Center, Inc v The Comptroller General Of Patents (Costs) [2020] EWHC 601 (Ch) (11 March 2020) on costs capping orders in appeals from costs constrained jurisdictions.

March 2020: Recent Decisions in the Patents Court

It has been a month or two since my last update. This is unsuprising, given there has been so much else going on. It is, however, important to get away from the unhappy news that dominates the front pages. Where better to turn than the judges of the Patents Court?

This post looks at six recent decisions:

Jan 2020: Recent Decisions in the Patents Court

This blog has been gathering dust a bit for the last few months thanks to a few very engaging patent cases. It’s important to stay on top of the pile of judgments in the in-tray though, so here’s a brief run down of the last three months of the Patents Court.

1. Evalve Inc & Ors v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd [2019] EWHC 3395 (Pat) (06 November 2019)

This was an interim application for specific disclosure. At least, that’s what the Claimant thought it was. Those in the know would be aware that the Business and Property Courts’ Disclosure Pilot makes applications for specific disclosure a thing of the past.… Read more...

Islestarr v Aldi: New tricks in the Brands v Imitators game

There is a very interesting Brands v Imitators judgment recently handed down in Islestarr Holdings Limited v Aldi Stores Limited [2019] EWHC 1473 (Ch).

This was the hearing of a summary judgment application brought by Islestarr (proprietor of Charlotte Tilbury makeup) in its proceedings against Aldi under the Shorter Trial Scheme. The Judgment is available on Westlaw.

The dispute related to what Islestarr alleged to be knock-offs of its makeup trays being sold in Aldi stores. Envisaging difficulties with a passing off claim Islestarr proceeded with a copyright claim, and in doing so succeeded in obtaining summary judgment over the discount supermarket.… Read more...

Are the days of unfettered harvesting and processing of personal data over?

Each year the International Bar Association runs an essay competition for junior advocates. Chambers encourages its pupils to have a go at the essay in the ‘Intellectual Property, Communications and Technology Law’ Section.

This year the question to be addressed was “Are the days of unfettered harvesting and processing of personal data over?” This wasn’t an area in which I had any litigation experience, but nonetheless it was an enjoyable challenge researching and writing an essay on what is a bit of a zeitgeist topic.

Sadly my entry wasn’t successful (to this day I don’t think I’ve ever even won a TV phone in) but I reproduce it below in case it is of interest.… Read more...

New: IPEC Guide 2019

The new users’ guide for the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) is now available. Below is a brief summary of some key changes of which practitioners should be aware.

Contents of Statements of Case:

The new guide contains cautionary guidance on the contents of statements of case. The IPEC guide has always stated that pleadings “must set out concisely all the facts and arguments upon which the party serving the statement relies.” The Guide now adds:

“This is sometimes misunderstood. All relevant facts and arguments must be stated. But they should not be set out in a manner which includes every detail.