Dear IP Practitioner,
I hope you like the first newsletter of our Intellectual Property and Technology Law Group.
Although we have always done some IP work it was mainly copyright and confidentiality. We have now recruited mew members so we can offer advice on patents, registered trade marks and designs as well as the work we have always done.
We can also represent you in the Patents Court, Patents County Court and Intellectual Property Office as well as the Chancery Division.
This month we focus on Twentieth Century Fox v Harris an important case on remedies for online piracy. This is an area of the law in which we are particularly strong. As well as Jane Lambert, we have Thomas Dillon who was Vice-President of, and Deputy General Counsel to, the Motion Picture Association in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
If you want further information about our IP and Technology Law group please call me on +44 (0)20 7670 1555 or fill in our contact form. I look forward to hearing from you.
With best wishes
The patent in suit was for an intermediate bulk carrier, an assembly in which a large plastic bottle was housed in a metal cage. The defendants substituted a competitor's bottle in the patentee's frame. The Court had to determine whether that amounted to "repair" or "making the invention".
The trial judge had held that this substitution amounted to repair. The Court of Appeal reversed him. The Supreme Court held that the trial judge had been right but for "more nuanced reasons,"
See Jane Lambert's case note "Make or Mend: Schütz v Werit reaches the Supreme Court", 5 April 2013.
In Mainetti (UK) Ltd v Hangerlogic UK Limited  EWPCC 42 (24 Oct 2012) Mr Recorder Purvis had to consider the validity of a series of registered designs for coat hangers and whether those design registrations had been infringed.The decision is mentioned because of the judge's analyses of whether a design is new and whether it has been infringed.
See Registered Designs: Mainetti (UK) Ltd v Hangerlogic UK Limited, 4 Nov 2012.
In Strellson AG v Thornton & Ross a Swiss fashion goods manufacturer opposed the pharmaceutical supplier's application to register the above for a range of medical products and cosmetics in classes
3 and 5 on the grounds that the sign conflicted with the following marj for perfumes and cosntics in class 3. The opposition succeeded in respect of certain skin care products but failed as to the rest.