-
Archives
- October 2010
- July 2010
- May 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- February 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
-
Meta
Author Archives: Jane Lambert
New Patent County Court Rules
At the beginning of this month CPR Part 45 and 63 and the corresponding practice directions were amended to limit the costs that can normally be awarded in claims before the Patents County Court. In an article on my IP/IT Update … Continue reading
Posted in Patents
Leave a comment
Circ & Variete Globus Bucureşti v Uniunea Compozitorilor şi Muzicologilor din România – Asociaţia pentru Drepturi de Autor – U.C.M.R. – A.D.A.
I am on the IPO’s mailing list for news of preliminary references to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). I tend not to mention them until they are reported but every so often a particular case catches … Continue reading
Interesting Slip: Leo Pharma v Sandoz
CPR 40.12 (1) provides: “The court may at any time correct an accidental slip or omission in a judgment or order.” It is known as the “slip rule”. It has a very venerable history. It replaces RSC O20 r.11 which … Continue reading
Posted in Civil Procedure
Tagged Civil Procedure, CPR 40.12, Leo v Sandoz, slip rule
Leave a comment
Copyright: SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd.
Although SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd. [2010] EWHC 1829 (Ch) (23 July 2010) ended inconclusively (and some say disappointingly) with a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union under art 267 of the Treaty … Continue reading
Does Trade Mark Law Really Stop Us from Telling The Truth? L’Oréal v Bellure
“The problem, stated at its most general, is simple. Does trade mark law prevent the defendants from telling the truth? Even though their perfumes are lawful and do smell like the corresponding famous brands, does trade mark law nonetheless muzzle the defendants so that they cannot say so?”
Lord Justice Jacob, L’Oréal v Bellure paragraph 6 Continue reading
Posted in Comparative Advertising, Passing-off, Trade Marks
Leave a comment
Oral Hearing for “Tomatoes” and “Broccoli” Opposition
The European Patent Office has today announced that the Enlarged Board of Appeal will hold a public hearing on 20 and 21 July 2010 to determine whether patents granted to the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture for a method of breeding tomatoes having a reduced water content and to Plant Bioscience Ltd. for selective increase of the anti-carciogenic glucosinolates in brassica species are patentable (see “Oral Proceedings to be held in the Tomatoes and Broccoli Cases” 3 Feb 2010). Both cases are concerned with the exclusion of essentially biological processes for the production of plants under art 53 (b) of the Convention. Continue reading
Posted in Patentability
Tagged Enlarged Board of Appeal, European Patent Office, Patentability, Patents, plants
Leave a comment
Facebook Patent Filings
Bill Slawski has reported in detail on Facebook’s US patent filings in his blog SEO By the Sea (“Facebook Patent Filings”, 24 Jan 2010). Many thanks to Shireen Smith of Azrights for drawing this article to my attention on twitter.
Posted in US
Leave a comment
Administrative Council to meet again to try to choose Brimelow’s Successor
An EGM of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organization has been called for today and tomorrow to elect a new president of the European Patent Office to succeed Alison Brimelow. The candidates are: Susanne Ǻs Sivborg of Sweden … Continue reading
Monthly Case Update: Jan 2010
Competition British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc v The Competition Commission [2010] EWCA Civ 2 (Court of Appeal, 21 Jan 2010) Whether the Competition Appeal Tribunal erred in its review of the Competition Commission’s report on the acquisition by BSB of … Continue reading
Posted in Monthly Case Update
Leave a comment
Patents: Fisher Rosemount Systems Inc.’s Application
The first decision from the Comptroller for 2010 offers an interesting discussion on how to assess an invention’s technical contribution when applying the Aerotel/Macrossan and Symbian guidelines. In Fisher Rosemount Systenms Inc. Application BL 0/003/10 12 Jan 2010 the applicant … Continue reading
