Case Reports

G2/21 – Enlarged Board Rules that Plausibility is Not the Answer

Before the European Patent Office, applicants frequently wish to rely on experimental evidence obtained after the filing date of the patent application ("post-filed evidence") in order to support an...

Software developer found to have copied former employer's code despite using different programming language and deleting the original source code

BackgroundThe claimants are two companies ("PQ") that produced quality assurance software, in particular statistical process control ("SPC") software and gauge management software.

Court of Appeal ends anticipation for InterDigital’s 3G Standard Essential Patent by revisiting claim construction

This Update deals with an interesting determination of the Court of Appeal before Lord Justices Lewison, Asplin, and Arnold where they overturned a finding of anticipation (lack of novelty) made by...

A pig in wolf’s clothing? Wolfoo unable to avoid valid service by providing multiple email addresses for service.

Entertainment One UK Limited & Anor v SCN Media Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 3295 (Ch)A seemingly global battle has begun between the owners of Peppa Pig and the makers of Wolfoo.

Tulip - a cautionary tale. Do software developers owe a fiduciary duty to users of the code they write? (Tulip Trading v Van Der Laan and Others)

SummaryOn 3 February 2023, the Court of Appeal in England ruled that the dispute between the Claimant, Tulip Trading Limited ("Tulip Trading") and the Defendants, who are sixteen bitcoin developers...

Geographic Scope of the UPC and Unitary Patent

The grant of a European Patent allows patent rights to be obtained in respect of over 35 states by means of the respective validation procedures for those states.

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) will begin operations in Europe on 1 June

Following news of Germany's depositing its instrument of ratification of the UPC agreement on 17 February, mark your calendars for 1 June when the Unified Patent Court (UPC) will begin operations in...

Director’s Liability Caught in a Tangle in Toy Making Feud in UK High Court

In Tangle Inc ("Tangle") and One for Fun Ltd ("One for Fun"), Mr David Stone (sitting as Deputy High Court Judge) had to consider the liability of three directors from One for Fun as joint...

InterDigital v Lenovo [2023] EWCA Civ 34

BackgroundAt first instance, His Honour Justice Hacon found EP 2 485 558 valid and essential to LTE. Lenovo were granted permission to appeal by Lord Justice Arnold against a finding of inventive...

A Year in Patents - Part 1/4: Swapping Simulations for the Patent Profession

Dr Girish Nivarti joined EIP's London office in October 2022. In this four-part series, he chronicles his first year as a trainee patent attorney.

Key provisions and IP considerations of the incoming EU CHIPS Act

This article originally appeared in IAM. Draft regulation not explicit on IP policy but some early guidance is on offer Act offers extensive opportunities for investment and collaboration Risk that...

Oxford University Innovation Limited v Oxford Nanoimaging Limited – a tale of pies and slices

SummaryIn a very long and detailed judgment, Daniel Alexander KC, sitting as a High Court judge, examined a number of issues relating to successful inventions arising out of research work carried out...

VLSI agrees to dismiss latest semiconductor patent complaint against Intel in Delaware

EIP partner Andrew Thompson has recently written an article for The Patent Lawyer on the VLSI v Intel case regarding a semiconductor patent complaint. Read the full article here.

Court of Appeal rules that there is no territorial restriction on damages for infringement of a UK patent

Anan Kasei Co. Limited & Anor v Neo Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 11The Court of Appeal has recently delivered judgment dismissing the Claimants' appeal in the long-running Anan...

Stepping through Alice’s looking glass: Sir Anthony Mann considers the purpose of DNI actions and unlikely payments of renewal fees

Lisa Dräxlmaier GmbH v BOS GmbH & Co KG [2022] EWHC 2823 (Pat)Background The claimant (Dräxlmaier) sought a declaration of non-infringement under s.71 of the Patents Act (s.