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 […]
(1) Thelma Madine (T/A Nico), (2) Camal Enterprises) v (1) Leanne Phillips (2) Pauline Phillips & Ors [2017] EWHC 3268 (IPEC).13 December 2017Ashton Chantrielle appeared for the Defendants in this action relating to UK unregistered design rights in wedding dresses. The Claimant, Thelma Madine, is a dressmaker and is best known for extravagant wedding dresses created for the traveller community, as seen on Channel 4’s My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding. Ms Madine claimed that the First Defendant, […]
W3 Ltd v easyGroup Ltd [2018] EWHC 7 (Ch)12 January 2018Tom Moody-Stuart QC and Jessie Bowhill were instructed in this complex trade mark dispute concerning the EASY marks which culminated in a two week High Court trial in front of Arnold J. The case involved complex issues arising out of an extensive period of concurrent trading by the parties, including the relevant date for assessment […]
Jake Fior v The Walt Disney Company Limited [2017] EWHC 2933 (IPEC)13 November 2017In a trade mark dispute about ‘ALICE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS’ Henry Ward for the Defendants Disney successfully applied to strike out the Claimant’s pleading that relied on without prejudice correspondence. The Judge held that the exceptions to the without prejudice rule in Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Limited [2010] UKSC 44 […]
Illumina Inc v Premaitha Health PLC and Ors19 March 2018Michael Tappin QC, along with Joe Delaney from 3 New Square, appeared for TDL Genetics, The Doctors Laboratory and Ariosa Diagnostics in this application by the two respective sets of Defendants to strike out the Claimants’ claim, or alternatively for summary judgment against the First Claimant. The Defendants argued that the bringing of the claim […]