Author Archives: Jane Lambert

About Jane Lambert

I am a barrister specializing in intellectual property, technology, media and entertainment and competition law. I specialize in helping SME (small and medium enterprises) protect and exploit their investment in brands, design, technology and the arts. SME require intellectual property (legal protection for their intellectual assets) at least as much as big business but their limited means restrict the way they can use it. Looking after such clients wisely requires skills and knowledge which have taken me years to learn.

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

Posted in Copyright | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

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 , , , | 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

Posted in Copyright | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

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 , , , , | 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

Posted in EPO | Tagged , | Leave a comment

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

Posted in excluded matter, Fisher Rosemount Systems Application, Patents, software | Leave a comment