Home > News

News

Phil & Ted’s Most Excellent Buggy Co. v. TFK Trends for Kids GmbH [2014] EWCA Civ 46916 April 2014Andrew Lykiardopoulos acted for Phil & Ted’s in this appeal concerning a patent for folding baby buggies and whether Phil & Ted’s “Promenade” buggy infringed a valid patent. Phil & Ted’s succeeded before Birss HHJ and the patent was held to be invalid. TFK appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed TFK’s appeal and upheld the […]
Hospira v Genentech [2014] EWHC 1094 (Pat)19 March 2014In this heavy biotech action Hospira sought to revoke three of Genentech’s patents relating to the blockbuster Herceptin monoclonal antibody product, as well as seeking a declaration of non-infringement. The patents related to issues of product purity and dosage regimens, with technical evidence being given by six experts, and particularly focussed on issues of novelty, […]
YouView Ltd v G & J Holdings GmbH (IPO) (O-113-14) (11 March 2014)11 March 2014Trade Mark Registry Opposition (consolidated proceedings). G & J Holdings Ltd opposed YouView Ltd’s three applications to register five trade marks consisting of or containing the words “My View” for various goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 41. The Opponent opposed the registration of these marks under s. 5(2)(b) of the 1994 Act […]
Harman International Industries Limited v Martin Audio Limited (O-108-14) (7 March 2014)7 March 2014Trade Mark Registry Invalidity Applications (consolidated proceedings). Harman International Industries Ltd applied to invalidate two UK trade Marks ‘OMNILIVE’ and ‘OmniLine’ both registered in respect of various goods in Class 9. Harman relied on objections under Sections 5(2)(b) and 5 (3) of the 1994 Act on the basis of its earlier Community Trade Mark ‘OMNIDRIVE’ […]
Ian Shanks v (1) Unilever Plc (2) Unilever NV (3) Unilever UK Central Resources Ltd O/259/137 February 2014The Intellectual Property Office has made public its substantive decision dismissing Professor Shanks’ long-running claim that patents resulting from an invention he made for his former employer Unilever had proved to be of “outstanding benefit” to Unilever and that he was therefore entitled to inventor’s compensation under s.40 Patents Act 1977. Daniel Alexander QC and […]