Home

News

Armour Group v Leisuretech Electronics [2008] EWHC 2797 (Pat)14 November 2008Daniel Alexander QC and James Abrahams represented the Claimant Armour and Richard Meade QC and Robert Smith represented Leisuretech Electronics in the trial held in October 2008. Armour sought revocation of Leisuretech’s patent for a system for the provision of stereo sound to different rooms from a single source using a particular type of ‘Cat […]
Armour Group v Leisuretech Electronics [2008] EWHC 2797 (Pat)14 November 2008Daniel Alexander QC and James Abrahams represented the Claimant Armour and Richard Meade QC and Robert Smith represented Leisuretech Electronics in the trial held in October 2008. Armour sought revocation of Leisuretech’s patent for a system for the provision of stereo sound to different rooms from a single source using a particular type of ‘Cat […]
Bambino Mio Ltd v Cazitex NV [2008] EWHC 2796 (Ch)13 November 2008This action involved a claim for Section 10(2) TMA 1994 trade mark infringement in relation to the Defendant’s, Cazitex’s, reusable nappies. The UK trade mark (registered for inter alia nappies) in issue was ‘Bambino Mio’, the potentially infringing mark ‘Bambineo’. After the 3 day High Court trial the claim was dismissed, the Judge finding in […]
Bambino Mio Ltd v Cazitex NV [2008] EWHC 2796 (Ch)13 November 2008This action involved a claim for Section 10(2) TMA 1994 trade mark infringement in relation to the Defendant’s, Cazitex’s, reusable nappies. The UK trade mark (registered for inter alia nappies) in issue was ‘Bambino Mio’, the potentially infringing mark ‘Bambineo’. After the 3 day High Court trial the claim was dismissed, the Judge finding in […]
Ancon CCL Limited v ACS Stainless Steel Fixings Ltd [2009] All ER (D) 148 (CA)21 October 2008The Claimant, represented by Daniel Alexander QC and James St. Ville, was the proprietor of a patent for ‘channel assembly’ for use in the construction industry. The Claimant brought an infringement claim against the Defendant who produced and supplied their own channel assembly. The Defendant, who was represented by Andrew Lykiardopoulos, brought a counterclaim for […]
Ancon CCL Limited -v- ACS Stainless Steel Fixings Ltd [2009] All ER (D) 148 (CA)21 October 2008The Claimant, represented by Daniel Alexander QC and James St. Ville, was the proprietor of a patent for ‘channel assembly’ for use in the construction industry. The Claimant brought an infringement claim against the Defendant who produced and supplied their own channel assembly. The Defendant, who was represented by Andrew Lykiardopoulos, brought a counterclaim for […]
Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Limited v Eli Lilly and Company Limited [2008] EWHC 2345 (Pat)13 October 2008The patent in suit was for a drug called olanzapine which is used in the treatment of schizophrenia. The Claimant sought to revoke the patent claiming that the patent was anticipated by and obvious in light of the Defendant’s provisional patent as well as other prior art which it claimed disclosed the formula for olanzapine. […]
Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Limited v. Eli Lilly and Company Limited [2008] EWHC 2345 (Pat)13 October 2008The patent in suit was for a drug called olanzapine which is used in the treatment of schizophrenia. The Claimant sought to revoke the patent claiming that the patent was anticipated by and obvious in light of the Defendant’s provisional patent as well as other prior art which it claimed disclosed the formula for olanzapine. […]
Symbian Appeal [2008] EWCA Civ 10668 October 2008In July 2008, Peter Prescott QC and Charlotte May acted for the Comptroller in the Symbian patent appeal relating to computer implemented inventions. This is the first case to reach the Court of Appeal on this aspect of the law since Aerotel and is intended to provide further guidance as to the applicability of the […]
Symbian Appeal [2008] EWCA Civ 10668 October 2008In July 2008, Peter Prescott QC and Charlotte May acted for the Comptroller in the Symbian patent appeal relating to computer implemented inventions. This is the first case to reach the Court of Appeal on this aspect of the law since Aerotel and is intended to provide further guidance as to the applicability of the […]