Monthly Archives: February 2007

Enforcement: English Patent Court Practice

Paragraph 7.9 (2) of PD63 requires claimants in the Patents Court to file a Reading Guide for the judge not less than 4 days before trial. Such Reading Guide must set out the issues, the parts of the documents that … Continue reading

Posted in Enfrocement, Patents Court practice Time Estimates | Leave a comment

IP and Development: Provisional Committee on Proposals related to a WIPO Development Agenda

William New has reported in Intellectual Property Watch that the WIPO Provisional Committee on Proposals related to a WIPO Development Agenda (“PCDA”) has reached broad agreement on 40 issues at their latest meeting which took place between 19 and 23 … Continue reading

Posted in WIPO Development Agenda PCDA | Leave a comment

Domain Names: A French Perspective

One of the advantages of registering my .eu domain name with indom.fr is that I receive a very good newsletter called “DomainesInfo” on domain names and internet governance from a French perspective. Today’s lead story, for instance, is “A quoi … Continue reading

Posted in Domain names French Perspective DomainesInfo | Leave a comment

Patents: More Macrossan Fallout

Patent Office hearing officers have added three new decisions to the ones I mentioned in “Patents: The Macrossan Aftermath” on 15 Feb 2007. All dismissals, I’m afraid.In NEC Corporation’s Application Mr Bartlett found on 16 Feb 2007 that the technical … Continue reading

Posted in Software Patents Hearing Officers' Decisions | Leave a comment

Security for Costs: Hart Investments Ltd v Larchpark Ltd. and Another

In England and Wales and a number of other countries costs (that is to say, lawyers’ fees and expenses) follow the event. Another way of putting it is that the loser pays. Not every country in the world has such … Continue reading

Posted in Security for costs Hart v Larchpark | Leave a comment

Confidential Information and Restraint of Trade: Thomas v Farr Plc – Ocular Sciences to join Series 5?

Nearly 10 years ago I wrote a case note on Ocular Sciences v Aspect Vision Care [1997] RPC 289 entitled “Have Faccenda’s Chickens had their Chips?” I chose that title because the CA had appeared to draw a distinction in … Continue reading

Posted in Confidential Information and Restraint of Trade Thomas v Farr Plc | Leave a comment

400th Post: US SAFE Port Act

Not for the first time I am indebted to my distinguished colleague Toni Tease of Billings, Montana for providing material for a post. Toni publishes an excellent monthly newsletter on IP called Intellections. This month’s issue discusses The Security and … Continue reading

Posted in 400th post SAFE Port Act Diana Wallis MEP | Leave a comment