Recent cases

Ablynx v VHsquared10 December 2019Lindsay Lane QC appeared for the Appellants in this case concerning whether the High Court had jurisdiction in patent infringement proceedings between two licensees. The licence contained an exclusive choice of court clause conferring jurisdiction on the Belgian court and, subsequent to the commencement of the UK proceedings, the Appellants had commenced proceedings in Belgium […]
Kogan v Martin & ors21 November 2019Ashton Chantrielle appeared for the Appellant, Julia Kogan in an appeal concerning joint authorship of copyright works. Jonathan Hill appeared for three film companies, which were third party defendants in the proceedings. The appeal concerned authorship of copyright in the screenplay for the film Florence Foster Jenkins. At first instance, HHJ Hacon declared that the […]
Shnuggle Limited v Munchkin Inc. and Lindam Limited [2019] EWHC 3149 (IPEC)20 November 2019Lindsay Lane QC appeared on behalf of the Defendants (Munchkin and Lindam) in this case involving design rights in baby baths. This was a claim for infringement of design rights in two registered Community designs and also UK unregistered design rights in respect of six designs related to certain parts of two models of baby […]
Warner Music and Sony Music v TuneIn [2019] EWHC 2923 (Ch)1 November 2019Robert Howe QC and Jaani Riordan appeared for the Defendant in an important test case concerning the scope of the right of communication to the public. The Claimants (Warner and Sony) were music labels who owned or licensed the copyright in numerous sound recordings. TuneIn was a platform offering a directory of hyperlinks to freely […]
Shanks v Unilever Plc & Ors23 October 2019In Shanks v Unilever, Lord Kitchin, giving the judgment of the Supreme Court, set aside the IPO hearing officer’s decision, upheld by Arnold J and the Court of Appeal, rejecting Prof Shanks’s claim for compensation from his employer, the research arm of Unilever, on grounds that patents for an electrochemical testing device he invented were […]
Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd and Anor v Sandoz Ltd and ors [2019] EWHC 2545 (Ch)4 October 2019Martin Howe QC, Iona Berkeley and Ashton Chantrielle appeared for the First to Fifth Defendants (‘Sandoz’) in this lengthy passing off trial, concerning the colour and get-up of the Claimants’ Seretide combination inhaler, an extremely successful prescription only medication. The two week trial held before Arnold J., as he then was, concerned the law of […]
Coloplast A/S v Salts Healthcare [2019] EWHC 1979 (Pat)30 September 2019Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC and Maxwell Keay appeared for the Claimant, Coloplast, to oppose an application brought by the Defendant to stay UK infringement and validity proceedings pending the conclusion of opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office. Applying the IPCom guidance, David Stone, siting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dismissed the stay application. Following […]
Pfizer v F. Hoffman La-Roche [2019] EWHC 1520 (Pat)20 September 2019Richard Meade QC and Thomas Jones  appeared for the Claimant, Pfizer, and Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC and Mark Chacksfield QC appeared for the Defendant, Roche, in a case concerning Arrow relief in circumstances where no UK Patent could grant by reason of dedesignations. The case concerned Pfizer’s proposed launch of a biosimilar containing bevacizumab to be […]
Glaxo Wellcome & anor v Sandoz & ors [2019] EWHC 1528 (Pat)12 June 2019Martin Howe QC, Iona Berkeley and Ashton Chantrielle appeared for the First to Fifth Defendants in this pre-trial review, in passing off proceedings relating to the colour and get-up of the Claimants’ Seretide combination inhaler. The principal issue to be determined at the pre-trial review was the Defendants’ application to exclude certain parts of the […]
Technetix BV v Teleste [2019] EWHC 928 (Pat)3 April 2019James Mellor QC appeared for the Defendant, Teleste, in this pre-trial review in a patent action. At the pre-trial review the Claimants, Technetix, made, inter alia, an unconditional application to amend their patent. The Claimants’ unconditional amendment sought to delete Claim 1 of the patent and to amend Claim 2 as a matter of form […]