Glencairn IP Holdings Ltd and another v Dartington Crystal [2018] EWHC 769 (Pat)16 March 2018James Abrahams QC appeared for the Claimants in this application for an interim injunction. The Claimants are the proprietor/ exclusive licensee of a registered design for a drinking glass and applied for an interim injunction against the Defendant, a manufacturer of glass wear. The Defendant had applied to revoke the registered design and for a […]
Premier League Commission8 August 2017A number of members of chambers regularly sit as arbitrators. Decisions of arbitral panels are rarely made public but an exception was the recent decision of a Commission, established pursuant to the rules of the Premier League, which has attracted interest among football clubs and fans concerning the rules requiring clubs to offer concessionary prices […]
Burgerista Operations GmbH v UK Prosper Limited and Ors [2018] EWHC 35 (IPEC)12 January 2018Tom Jones appeared for the Claimant and Ashton Chantrielle appeared for the Defendants in this case relating to the validity and infringement of the European trade mark ‘BURGERISTA’. The Claimant sued for infringement of its trade mark by the Defendants’ use of the sign ‘BURGISTA’ in respect of its chain of burger restaurants in London. […]
Accord Healthcare Limited v Research Corporation Technologies [2017] EWHC 2711 (Ch)6 November 2017In this case William Duncan appeared for the Claimant, led by Piers Acland QC of 11 South Square. This action related to a patent for lacosamide; an anti-epileptic drug. Accord Healthcare Limited sought to invalidate the SPC protecting lacosamide, on grounds that the patent was invalid. Accord challenged the entitlement of the patent to claim […]
Hospira UK Limited v Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC [2018] EWCA Civ 1218 January 2018Richard Meade QC and Isabel Jamal appeared for the Respondent, Hospira, in this appeal against the revocation of Cubist’s patent at first instance. The patent concerned a method of purification for the antibiotic daptomycin. The Judge had found that the patent was obvious in light of the teaching of a piece of prior art which […]