Smith & Nephew PLC v Convatec Technologies Inc [2013] EWHC 3955 (Pat)17 January 2014James Mellor QC and Charlotte May recently appeared for the Claimant and Third Parties (together ‘Smith & Nephew’) in patent proceedings regarding a European patent owned by Convatec. Convatec’s patent concerns a method of silverisation of gel-forming fibres used in wound dressings, using a sodium chloride reagent present at a concentration between 1% and 25% […]
Eugen Seitz AG v. KHS Corpoplast GMBH & Norgren AG [2014] EWHC 14 (Ch)15 January 2014Andrew Lykiardopoulos acted for the patentees (KHS Corpoplast and Norgren) defending this action for patent revocation and a declaration of non-infringement brought by Seitz. The patent concerned plastic pistons for blow moulding machines used in the bottling industry. Following a 7 day trial and a subsequent attempt by Seitz to re-open the trial, Mr Justice […]
Manitowoc Beverage Systems Limited and Malachy Scott Sr et al BL O/019/1415 January 2014Ashton Chantrielle recently appeared for the patentee in a patent revocation action at the Intellectual Property Office. The patent related to a system for cooling and dispensing beverage in which the beverage was cooled en route to the dispensing font. The font was also cooled to create a decorative ice effect. The claimant applied to […]
Starsight Telecast Inc (Rovi) v Virgin Media Ltd [2014] EWHC 8 (pat)9 January 2014Members of Chambers recently appeared for both sides in a partial summary judgment application in the on-going series of litigation between Rovi and Virgin Media. James Abrahams appeared for Rovi defending the application made by Virgin, who were represented by James Whyte. In October 2012 the EPO Opposition Division held the claims of one of […]
HTC Corp v Nokia Corp [2013] EWHC 324712 December 2013Michael Tappin QC  recently appeared with Nicholas Saunders and Miles Copeland for Nokia, the successful patentee in a revocation and infringement action. Nokia’s patent was for a modulator structure using a Gilbert cell in mobile telecommunications. HTC claimed that the patent was invalid for reasons of lack of novelty and for obviousness over two prior […]