Home

News

Manitowoc Beverage Systems Limited and Malachy Scott Sr et al BL O/019/1415 January 2014Ashton Chantrielle recently appeared for the patentee in a patent revocation action at the Intellectual Property Office. The patent related to a system for cooling and dispensing beverage in which the beverage was cooled en route to the dispensing font. The font was also cooled to create a decorative ice effect. The claimant applied to […]
Eugen Seitz AG v. KHS Corpoplast GMBH & Norgren AG [2014] EWHC 14 (Ch)15 January 2014Andrew Lykiardopoulos acted for the patentees (KHS Corpoplast and Norgren) defending this action for patent revocation and a declaration of non-infringement brought by Seitz. The patent concerned plastic pistons for blow moulding machines used in the bottling industry. Following a 7 day trial and a subsequent attempt by Seitz to re-open the trial, Mr Justice […]
Manitowoc Beverage Systems Limited and Malachy Scott Sr et al BL O/019/1415 January 2014Ashton Chantrielle recently appeared for the patentee in a patent revocation action at the Intellectual Property Office. The patent related to a system for cooling and dispensing beverage in which the beverage was cooled en route to the dispensing font. The font was also cooled to create a decorative ice effect. The claimant applied to […]
Charlotte May listed in The Lawyer list of Hot 100 Barristers14 January 2014Charlotte May has been selected as one of  The Lawyer’s list of Hot 100 barristers in 2014. Her profile and summary of her work will appear in a forthcoming Hot 100 barristers publication. 
Starsight Telecast Inc (Rovi) v Virgin Media Ltd [2014] EWHC 8 (pat)9 January 2014Members of Chambers recently appeared for both sides in a partial summary judgment application in the on-going series of litigation between Rovi and Virgin Media. James Abrahams appeared for Rovi defending the application made by Virgin, who were represented by James Whyte. In October 2012 the EPO Opposition Division held the claims of one of […]
Starsight Telecast Inc (Rovi) v Virgin Media Ltd [2014] EWHC 8 (pat)9 January 2014Members of Chambers recently appeared for both sides in a partial summary judgment application in the on-going series of litigation between Rovi and Virgin Media. James Abrahams appeared for Rovi defending the application made by Virgin, who were represented by James Whyte. In October 2012 the EPO Opposition Division held the claims of one of […]
HTC Corp v Nokia Corp [2013] EWHC 324712 December 2013Michael Tappin QC  recently appeared with Nicholas Saunders and Miles Copeland for Nokia, the successful patentee in a revocation and infringement action. Nokia’s patent was for a modulator structure using a Gilbert cell in mobile telecommunications. HTC claimed that the patent was invalid for reasons of lack of novelty and for obviousness over two prior […]
(1) Actavis Group PTC EHF (2) Actavis UK Ltd v (1) Sanofi (2) Sanofi Pharma Bristol-Myers Squibb SNC (C-443/12)12 December 2013Four members of chambers recently appeared in a hearing at the CJEU in the much anticipated preliminary reference hearing regarding the availability of Supplementary Protection Certificates (“SPC”). Richard Meade QCand Isabel Jamal appeared for Actavis. Daniel Alexander QC represented Sanofi and Charlotte May was instructed by the United Kingdom Government as an interested party. Sanofi’s […]
Actavis Group v Sanofi (C-443/12)12 December 2013Four members of chambers recently appeared in a hearing at the CJEU in the much anticipated preliminary reference hearing regarding the availability of Supplementary Protection Certificates (“SPC”). Richard Meade QCand Isabel Jamal appeared for Actavis. Daniel Alexander QC represented Sanofi and Charlotte May was instructed by the United Kingdom Government as an interested party. Sanofi’s […]
HTC Corp v Nokia Corp [2013] EWHC 324712 December 2013Michael Tappin QC  recently appeared with Nicholas Saunders and Miles Copeland for Nokia, the successful patentee in a revocation and infringement action. Nokia’s patent was for a modulator structure using a Gilbert cell in mobile telecommunications. HTC claimed that the patent was invalid for reasons of lack of novelty and for obviousness over two prior […]