Home > News > Recent cases

Conversant Wireless Licensing v Huawei and ZTE8 January 2020Tom Moody-Stuart QC and James Whyte appeared for the claimant and Michael Tappin QC and Henry Ward appeared for the defendants in this patent action, one of a series of technical trials between these parties.  This trial was to determine whether three of the claimant’s patents were valid and essential to telecommunications standards relating to […]
77m Ltd v Ordnance Survey Ltd [2019] EWHC 3007 (Ch)20 December 2019In this dispute relating to the rights in mapping and addressing databases, Jaani Riordan represented 77m and Lindsay Lane QC and Jessie Bowhill represented Ordnance Survey. 77M had created a dataset called Matrix consisting of geospatial coordinates and addresses in Great Britain. It had done so by using a wide range of datasets which were […]
Teva UK Ltd & Ors v Gilead Sciences, Inc [2019] EWCA Civ 227219 December 2019“On 19 December 2019, the Court of Appeal issued its judgment in Teva v. Gilead concerning the supplementary protection certificate relating to the antiviral combination sold under the name Truvada ®.  Gilead’s appeal from Arnold J was dismissed and the court confirmed the invalidity of the SPC on the ground of non-compliance with Article 3(a) […]
Adolf Nissen Elektrobau GmbH & Co Kg v Horizont Group GmbH [2019] EWHC 3522 (IPEC)18 December 2019Maxwell Keay appeared on behalf of the Defendant (‘Horizont’) in this patent revocation claim. The parties to the action were both in the business of electric road traffic signs. The Claimant (‘Nissen’) sought to revoke a UK patent owned by Horizont for an invention entitled ‘Mobile warning device for road traffic’. The alleged ground of […]
Koninklijke Philips NV v (1) Asustek Computer Inc (2) Asustek (UK) Ltd (3) Asus Technology PTE Ltd (4) HTC Corp (5) HTC Europe Co Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 223017 December 2019James Abrahams QC appeared on behalf of the Defendants in this appeal. The case concerned three mobile telecommunications patents (“659”, “525” and “511”) that the Claimant had declared were essential to the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System standard. Arnold J at first instance (in separate judgments for each patent) held that 659 was invalid but that […]