Home

News

Illumina Cambridge Ltd v Latvia MGI Tech SIA & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 192417 December 2021Isabel Jamal appeared as junior counsel for the defendants (“MGI”) in part of an appeal of the order of Birss J (as he then was) declaring that four patents owned by the claimants (“Illumina”) were, as amended, valid and infringed by MGI. The patents described and claimed inventions in the field of DNA sequencing, specifically […]
Recent case law addressing claims of confidentiality in FRAND and other disputes15 December 2021Several members of chambers have been involved in cases developing the jurisprudence relating to confidentiality regimes in FRAND disputes[1]. So-called “FRAND” cases concern alleged infringement of patents relating to technology said to be essential to an industry standard (“SEP”).  SEPs are declared to a Standards Setting Organisation (e.g. ETSI for telecommunications), and often the proprietor […]
Combe International LLC & Ors v Dr August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel & Ors10 December 2021Ashton Chantrielle appeared as junior counsel for the defendants (“Dr Wolff”) in proceedings brought by the claimants (“Combe”) for trade mark infringement and passing off. Combe is the registered proprietor of various UK registered trade marks for the word mark VAGISIL registered in Classes 3 and 5 for female intimate healthcare products. Combe alleged trade […]
HRH Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 18102 December 2021Jessie Bowhill appeared as junior IP counsel for Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, and Adrian Speck QC and Isabel Jamal appeared as IP counsel for Associated Newspapers in the appeal by Associated Newspapers of the judgment of Warby J granting the Duchess summary judgment. The proceedings concern the publication by the Mail on Sunday […]
Michael Penhallurick v MD5 Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 17702 December 2021Michael Conway appeared for the Defendant (“MD5”), successfully opposing an appeal of the judgment of Hacon HHJ finding that MD5 was the proprietor of the literary copyrights subsisting in software. The software, which was marketed by MD5 as “VFC” (Virtual Forensic Computing) was written by Mr Penhallurick, a former MD5 employee.  It allowed agencies, such […]
Optis Cellular Technology LLC & Ors v Apple Retail UK Limited & Ors [2021] EWHC 3121 (Pat)25 November 2021James Abrahams QC, James Whyte and Michael Conway appeared for the Claimants (“Optis”) and Lindsay Lane QC appeared as lead counsel for the Defendants (“Apple”) in Trial C in the ongoing proceedings between these parties.  The wider proceedings relate to 8 telecommunications patents claimed to be standard-essential patents owned by Optis and the potential licensing […]
Optis v Apple [2021] EWCA Civ 161910 November 2021Mark Chacksfield QC, Tom Jones and Henry Edwards appeared for the claimants/respondents (“Optis”) in an appeal brought by the defendants (“Apple”) against the judgment of Birss J in which he found one of Optis’ patents to be valid, essential and infringed by Apple through dealings in their iPhones and iPads. In the appeal, Apple argued […]
BASF Corporation & Ors v Carpmaels & Ransford (a firm) [2021] EWHC 2899 (Ch)29 October 2021Henry Ward appeared for the Defendant (“Carpmaels”), with John Wardell QC and Nick Zweck, in legal proceedings brought by the Claimants (“BASF”) for professional negligence. Carpmaels failed to appeal an EPO decision revoking a patent for lack of inventive step, various internal safeguard systems having failed.  The patent was for an emissions treatment system and […]
Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners20 October 2021We are pleased to report our continued success in the 2022 editions of Chambers & Partners and Legal 500. Chambers & Partners has ranked us in Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Media & Entertainment and many of our members are singled out for praise. The Legal 500 ranks us as a Top Tier Set in […]
Optis v Apple [2021] EWHC 2759 (Pat)11 October 2021Isabel Jamal and Jennifer Dixon appeared for the Claimants (“Optis”) in the consequentials hearing following the judgment of Meade J in Trial F in these proceedings. At Trial F, the judge held that the Defendants (“Apple”) needed to give an undertaking to take the FRAND licence set by the Court at a future trial (“Trial […]