We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 39

Patents County Court offers new interpretation of moral rights

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 7 2012

In Emma Delves-Broughton v House of Harlot 2012 EWPCC 29, the Patents County Court held that alterations made to a photograph amounted to a derogatory treatment of the work and, therefore, infringed the claimant’s moral rights under Section 80 of the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the CDPA

High Court Holds Sale of Third-Party Coffee Pods Not an Infringement

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 12 2013

On 22 April 2013, the High Court of England and Wales held in Nestec SA and Others v Dualit Ltd and Others 2013 EWHC 923 (Pat) that Nestec's patent

Occlutech GmbH v AGA Medical Corp: claim construction

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • September 28 2010

Dismissing an appeal from a decision of Mr Justice Mann, the Court of Appeal, in Occlutech GmbH v AGA Medical Corp 2010 EWCA (Civ) 702, has decided that, although in a suitable context the word "clamp" could be understood to carry an extended meaning, in the context of the patent in suit, a "clamp" meant a "clamp" in the everyday sense of the word, and not an all-inclusive term for means of securing things together

The extent of patent coverage in offshore waters: a comparison

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • South Africa, United Kingdom, USA
  • -
  • April 5 2012

Patents are often said to be defined by their claims and, as such, are analogous in the parlance of real property to the “metes and bounds” of a deed to real property

Drug formulation patent found to be invalid in the United Kingdom but valid in other jurisdictions

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • April 30 2012

Mr Justice Arnold’s decision in Teva and others v Astrazeneca AB 2012 EWHC 655 (Pat) invalidated Astrazeneca’s patent for a sustained release formulation of the anti-psychotic drug quetiapine in the United Kingdom, on the grounds of obviousness, just days after the same patent was found to be valid in the Netherlands

Patents County Court offers guidance for orders for dissemination

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 6 2012

In Brigade (BBS-TEK) Limited v Back-Tec Worldwide Ltd and Another 2012 EWPCC 52, the Patents County Court (PCC) dismissed an order for dissemination made by Brigade (as one of several consequential orders to an application for judgment in default) for lack of evidence

Marathon oil company's patent application: computer-related inventions and the contribution approach

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • September 28 2010

In relation to Marathon Oil Company's Application (Patent Office) BL O17410, Marathon Oil Company and Companie Generale de Geophysique (the Applicants) filed an application to patent an invention relating to "a method for predicting quantitative values of a designated rock or fluid property."

High Court of England and Wales has jurisdiction to try pan-European declaration of non-infringement action

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 9 2013

In Actavis Group HF v Eli Lilly and Company 2012 EWHC 3316 (Pat) the High Court of England and Wales has held that, in cases where there is no challenge

Unilever plc v Ian Alexander Shanks: calculating employee compensation

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 25 2011

Professor Shanks made an invention patented by his employer, Unilever UK Central Resources Ltd (CRL

Pilot Drilling Control Ltd v Smith International Inc: UKIPO refuses request for confidentiality

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 31 2011

In Pilot Drilling Control Ltd v Smith International Inc BL O04611, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has refused a request for confidentiality in respect of proceedings regarding the ownership of a patent

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Jurisdiction

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy