In joining us Jane did not leave Yorkshire. You can still call on her enormous knowledge and experience of IP and technology law whenever you want without traipsing to London . You can see her in conference at the Media Centre or Gumption if you wish. She will still carry on all the activities that she carried on before, such as chairing the Leeds and Sheffield Inventors Groups and the Barnsley IP clinic. You will continue to bump into her at events like Venturefest Yorkshire and Leeds Girl Geek Dinners.
When Jane or any of our members appears for you in the Rolls Building she will have all the resources of a powerful London chambers behind her. Conversely. if you need her or one of her colleagues in Leeds we can now support her there. We are also developing a presence in Newport should you need representation in the Intellectual Property Office. You can read all about our services in Jane's article "Supporting Yorkshire Business."
Of course, you are always welcome to see us in London should you so wish. Gray's Inn is beautiful especially at this time of the year. George Scanlan and I are now clerking Jane and her team so give me a ring on 020 7670 1555 or fill in our contact form. I look forward to seeing you.
The new Boar Members of Humber Local Enterprise Partnership and wish them well.
The IP Group and Sheffield University on the launch of its £30 million venture capital fund.
Liz and her team at Virtuoso Legal for sponsoring the Leeds Big Bookend. We hope it goes well.
The patent box is a tax concession to encourage businesses to invest in research and development in the UK which came into force on 1 April 2013.
The Leeds Inventors Group held a seminar on the patent box and R & D Credits on 8 May 2013 where the speakers were Jane Lambert and Dan Brookes of BDO. You can find a report of the meeting and download Dan's slides here. Jane gave a similar presentation to one she had delivered in Liverpool on 29 April 2013 which you will find here.
If you have any questions about the patent box, R & D credits or any other point relating to IP and tax Anne Fairpo is an authority. You can contact her on 020 7670 1550.
Since 1 Oct 2012 it was been possible to bring a claim for an injunction and other relief for most intellectual property claims without risking a ruinous order for costs if the claim fails. This will go a long way towards restoring small businesses' confidence in the intellectual property system.
Since Jane gave her presentation the small claims limit was raised from £5.000 to £10,000 and damages based or contingency fee agreements ("DBA") have been permitted. Because of the predictability of costs with the simple small claims procedure we think that DBAs would work for claims in that court. Jane discussed that possibility as well as others in "IP Litigation - the Funding Options" NIPC Law on 10 April 2013.
If you want to discuss any of those possibilities call Steve or George on 020 7670 1555.
Stresslson AG v Thornoton & Ross
This was an opposition to the registration of a trade mark. Huddersfield pharmaceutical company had applied to register this sign as a trade mark. Its application was opposed by the Swiss menswear retailer Strellson AG under s.5 (2) (b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Thornton & Ross were represented by our member Jane Lambert.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Others v Harris and Others
This was an application for a proprietary injunction, an injunction to retrain the first defendant from dealing with or disposing of his house, car or his other property on the ground that he held those assets on trust for the claimants. The claimants, the trade association of the Hollywood film industry and several of its members, contended that the first defendant held those assets on trust for them because he had bought the assets with moneys derived from the infringement of their' copyrights. This was the first time such an application had been brought in the UK or indeed anywhere. Had it succeeded it would been a very powerful remedy for copyright owners. Jane Lambert who appeared for our members resisted the application successfully.
The Court of Appeal reconsidered the exclusion from patentability of software patents "as such" in HTC Europe Co Ltd. v Apple Inc. The parties to the dispute had settled their differences but Apple wanted the Comptroller to appear on the appeal to protect the public interest. This is a difficult case to follow and Jane Lambert has discerned the main points in her case note.
This was the Supreme Court's second patent case and concerned the extent to which the owner of a patented product can repair it by replacing a worn part with a spare supplied by a third party. This was a topic that had recently been considered by the House of Lords. The importance of this case is that it clarified the law relating to repair.