Category: Intellectual Property

Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others: SC 17 Apr 2013

The agency alleged copyright infringement by the members of the appellant association who were licensed to copy newspaper articles for its members as part of its news monitoring service.
Held: It was necessary to refer to the European Court of Justice the question of whether article 5.1 of the 2001 Directive, as implemented in section 28A of the 1998 Act are satisfied.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath

Citations:

[2013] UKSC 18, UKSC 2011/0202, [2013] 3 CMLR 11, [2013] ECDR 10, [2013] 2 All ER 852, [2013] EMLR 21, [2013] RPC 19

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC

Statutes:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Directive 2001/29/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At first Instance – The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others v Meltwater Holding Bv and Others ChD 26-Nov-2010
The claimant newspapers complained of the spidering of the web-sites and redistribution of the materials collected by the defendants to its subscribers. The defendants including the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) denied that they . .
Appeal from – The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others v Meltwater Holding Bv and Others CA 27-Jul-2011
The defendant companies provided media monitoring services, automatically searching web-sites for terms of interest. The claimant newspapers operated a licensing system through the first claimant permitting the re-use of the content on its members . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, European

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472626

Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha and Another v Neesam and Others: PatC 13 May 2009

Claimants’ application dated 2 March 2009 for the hearing of two preliminary issues in the inquiry as to damages in a trade mark infringement action, which was decided largely in favour of the claimants.

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1213 (Pat)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Damages

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.346892

MMI Research Ltd v Cellxion Ltd and others: PatC 11 Mar 2009

Judges:

Mr Justice Floyd

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 418 (Pat), [2009] Info TLR 35

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – MMI Research Ltd v Cellxion Ltd and others PatC 22-Aug-2007
Application for unless order as regards defendant’s failure to serve defence. . .

Cited by:

See Also – MMI Research Ltd. v Cellxion Ltd and Others PatC 31-Jul-2009
. .
See Also – MMI Research v Cellxion CA 16-Oct-2009
Application for leave to appeal against finding that patent valid. The defendants had received anonymously new evidence suggesting theexistence of prior art.
Held: The matter was to be remitted to the judge to deal with the new issues and none . .
See Also – MMI Research Ltd v Cellxion Ltd and Others PatC 7-Mar-2011
The court had decided in favour of the claimant patent holders that the patent was valid and had been infringed. The defendants, with the consent of the Court of Appeal now asked the court to reconsider its decision so far as it was affected by new . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.317964

MMI Research Ltd v Cellxion Ltd and others: PatC 22 Aug 2007

Application for unless order as regards defendant’s failure to serve defence.

Judges:

Warren J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3464 (Pat), HC-2006-C02649

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – MMI Research Ltd v Cellxion Ltd and Others ChD 24-Sep-2007
The claimant had accidentally disclosed a confidential document it should not have done. The defendant argued that there had been a waiver of privilege.
Held: Applying Al Fayed, it could not in these circumstances be said that the mistake was . .
See Also – MMI Research Ltd v Cellxion Ltd and others PatC 11-Mar-2009
. .
See Also – MMI Research Ltd. v Cellxion Ltd and Others PatC 31-Jul-2009
. .
See Also – MMI Research v Cellxion CA 16-Oct-2009
Application for leave to appeal against finding that patent valid. The defendants had received anonymously new evidence suggesting theexistence of prior art.
Held: The matter was to be remitted to the judge to deal with the new issues and none . .
See Also – MMI Research Ltd v Cellxion Ltd and Others PatC 7-Mar-2011
The court had decided in favour of the claimant patent holders that the patent was valid and had been infringed. The defendants, with the consent of the Court of Appeal now asked the court to reconsider its decision so far as it was affected by new . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.273216

Social Idol (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 14 Dec 2020

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Distinctive and dominant components
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Composite word marks
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Treatment of descriptive / allusive elements
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Average Customer – Consumer attention levels
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Likelihood of Confusion – State of the register
Revocation / Proof of Use – Dates – genuine use
Revocation / Proof of Use – Variant forms of marks – use with matter added or subtracted
Revocation / Proof of Use – Variant forms of marks – stylistic / presentation differences

Judges:

Mrs L Stephens

Citations:

[2020] UKIntelP o62520

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.661632

Master Data Center Inc v The Comptroller General of Patents: PatC 11 Mar 2020

Supplementary Protection Certificates

Judges:

Mr Recorder Douglas Campbell QC

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 572 (Pat)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Master Data Center Inc v The Comptroller General of Patents (Costs) PatC 11-Mar-2020
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, European

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.649972

WMS Gaming Inc (Patent): IPO 26 Mar 2013

IPO The application relates to a system for displaying a web page having a plurality of icons, each icon allowing access to a corresponding wagering game under the control of one of a plurality of source servers. The Hearing Officer applied the Aerotel/Macrossan test and decided that the contribution made by the invention fell solely within excluded matter. He also considered the decisions in Symbian, Gemstar v Virgin, and ATandT Knowledge Ventures LP and CVON and concluded that the contribution did not have a relevant technical effect. The application was refused as no more than a program for a computer as such.

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o13713

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472244

IGT (Patent) O/140/13: IPO 27 Mar 2013

IPO The application concerns game playing services in game machines, such as slot machines or video poker games. The thrust of the application is to enable game patrons to recover left-amounts which may arise from transactions involving different currencies. This is facilitated by software in the game machine’s logic modules. These left-over amounts can be awarded as cash, prizes or as credits restricted for use in the game operator’s business.
The hearing officer applied the Aerotel/Macrossan test and particularly took account of Symbian, ATandT/CVON and Halliburton. He found that the claims related entirely to a method for doing business and a computer program, as such, and therefore refused the application.

Judges:

Mr J Houlihan

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o14013, GB0916751.1, O/140/13

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 1(2)

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472239

Paul Kelly v Packexe (Holdings) Limited (Patent): IPO 25 Mar 2013

IPO The application relates to a method of avoiding injuries caused by shattered glass at the scene of a road traffic accident. Mr Kelly claimed that the invention was made by him while working as a part-time fire fighter with the Bedfordshire and Luton Fire and Rescue Service. He claimed that he became aware of an adhesive film produced by Packexe for protecting carpet while involved in part-time painting and decorating work, and devised the idea of applying the film to vehicles at the scene of an accident to improve the breaking and extraction of glass. He approached Packexe through his employers, and the two parties then became involved in testing and development work. The patent application was filed by Packexe. Mr Kelly claims that he is entitled to be named as sole inventor and that ownership should be transferred to him. Packexe contested the claims and questioned the originality of Mr Kelly’s idea.
The hearing officer decided that both parties had contributed their own ideas to the final product and that it was equitable to allow Mr Kelly to file a new application based on subject matter deleted from the original. No order for costs was made. In accordance with the guidance in Markem, it was decided that there was not an unarguable case for taking validity into account.

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o13113

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472242

Nigel John Buck (Patent): IPO 8 Mar 2013

IPO The invention relates to Self Generating Electric Vehicle (SGEV) having an alternator associated with a drive-wheel of a vehicle in order to recharge an onboard battery and for extending the range of travel. Although it is very brief, the description says that the vehicle can self-generate its own energy. The Hearing Officer decided that the invention could not work in the way described as it would contravene the well-established first law of thermodynamics. The application was refused for not being capable of industrial application and for not describing the invention in a clear or sufficient manner for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art.

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o10613

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472241

Ebay (Patent): IPO 6 Mar 2013

IPO The application relates to a system for enabling a user to access access controlled data. The invention is based on using a so-called ‘peer-to-peer’ network and allows a user to pass on to another user a media file that they have downloaded. That further user can then request permission to play the file without having to start again by downloading the file from a server, the request however naturally involving a payment. What allows the user to play the file is data incorporated into a ‘header’ which is separated from the main data of the media file, i.e. the music/video data itself.
The Hearing Officer applied the four step test set out in Aerotel/Macrossan in the light of the Symbian judgments and the ATandT signposts and found that the invention is excluded under Section 1(2) because it relates solely to excluded matter, namely to a computer program and a business method as such. The application was refused.

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o10713

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472238

Lei-Ti Huang, Yeu Ming Tai Chemical Industrial Co, Ltd, James Huang, Chin-Chun Chou, Chin-Cha Chou, Wen-I Kuo (Patent): IPO 6 Feb 2013

IPO An uncontested application was filed by Lei-Ti Huang under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Lei-Ti Huang should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with James Huang, Chin-Chun Chou, Chin-Cha Chou and Wen-I Kuo in the granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as a joint inventor be prepared for the granted patent for the invention.

Judges:

A R Bushell

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o06113, O/061/13

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472216

Intuit Inc (Patent): IPO 26 Feb 2013

IPO The invention relates to a method for dynamically configuring a subset of modules of a software product based on the features purchased. The user receives an identifier corresponding to the purchase and this purchase information is stored on a server. The user then makes an access request for the software using the identifier and the server provides configuration instructions to enable the purchased software. In response to another access request made at a later date, a newer version of the configuration instructions will be provided. For example, the updated configuration instructions might allow access to modules not enabled in the software as purchased or might result in an updated version of a given module that was already enabled by the original configuration instructions.
The Hearing Officer applied the four step test set out in Aerotel/Macrossan in the light of the Symbian and Halliburton judgements and the ATandT signposts. She found the invention as claimed is excluded under Section 1(2) because it relates solely to excluded matter, namely to a computer program and a business method as such. The application was refused.

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o09113, O/091/13

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472211

Knauf Insulation Ltd (Patent): IPO 28 Feb 2013

IPO The divisional application had been filed out of time, but the applicant was able to demonstrate that the circumstances for late filing were exceptional and that proper diligence had been exercised throughout prosecution of the application. The Hearing Officer agreed to extend the time limit for filing the divisional application.

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o09813, O/098/13

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472213

Lantana Ltd (Patent): IPO 4 Feb 2013

IPO The application relates to retrieving data from a remote computer using e-mail. A local computer sends a first e-mail containing machine-readable retrieval criteria and the remote computer responds with an e-mail containing the requested data. The Hearing Officer applied the Aerotel/Macrossan test and decided that the contribution made by the invention fell solely within excluded matter. He also considered the decisions in IGT/Acres Gaming , Gemstar v Virgin and in ATandT Knowledge Ventures LP and CVON and concluded that the contribution did not have a relevant technical effect. The application was refused as no more than a program for a computer as such.

Judges:

Mr S Brown

Citations:

GB1014714.8, [2013] UKIntelP o05613

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 1(2)

Cited by:

Appeal from – Lantana Ltd v The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks PatC 4-Sep-2013
Peter Prescott QC J set out the four steps to be taken: ‘The approach is in four steps:
‘(1) properly construe the claim;
(2) identify the actual contribution;
(3) ask whether it falls solely within the excluded subject matter;
At IPO – Lantana Ltd v The Comptroller General of Patents, Design and Trade Marks CA 13-Nov-2014
The inventor company appealed against rejection of its application for a patent for a computer program.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘on the facts found by the Hearing Officer, the invention is no more than the computerisation of a process which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472215

Tip-TopCom Ltd and Salvus Technology Limited (Patent): IPO 17 Jan 2013

IPO The Hearing Officer found the patent to be invalid during the course of revocation proceedings. In order to meet the issues raised, Salvus Technology Limited applied to amend the patent under s75. In Decision BL/O/326/12, the Hearing Officer concluded that the proposed amendments were allowable, and so in the present decision the Hearing Officer allowed the amendments.

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o02713, O/027/13

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472189

Christopher Blacklock (Patent): IPO 21 Feb 2013

IPO The invention is concerned with a gas diffuser for diffusing an inert gas, such as carbon dioxide, into an area of a patient’s body undergoing an invasive medical procedure such as surgery. By displacing air, the invention reduces the risk of infection and air embolisms. The invention comprises a tip made from a hydrophobic, micro-porous material and claims the advantage that the tip is sufficiently dense not to let fluid soak into it and to allow gas to diffuse through the majority of its surface when immersed in fluid. It is stated to therefore be more effective in use and enable a reduced gas flow in operation.
The Hearing Officer considered the steps set out in Windsurfing and Pozzoli in assessing whether the claimed inventive concept involves an inventive step. He construed the claim to determine that the difference between the claimed inventive concept and the state of the art was obvious and as such did not provide the required inventive step. The application was remitted to the examiner because of the presence of features in the application which were not clearly defined by the claims, which may enable a saving amendment.

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o08013, O/080/13

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472201

Forensic Pathways (Patent): IPO 7 Feb 2013

IPO The application relates to a computer program for consolidating data relating to telephone calls gathered from multiple sources and for analysing this data to identify networks of people and the links between them. It finds particular application in the field of digital forensics, which involves the recovery and examination of material found in digital devices such as computers and mobile phones in support of criminal investigations. The Hearing Officer found that the contribution made by the invention, namely a better tool for cleaning telecommunication data and identifying networks of individuals, was not technical and that the invention was excluded as a computer program. The application was refused.

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o05813, O/058/13

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472207

YKK Europe Limited (Patent): IPO 4 Jan 2013

IPO The application was filed in the name of YKK Europe Limited on 22 December 2009. The application consisted of the various documents and Patents Forms 1, 7 and 9 (and their relevant fees) but the official forms filed did not include a request for the substantive examination of the application on a Patents Form 10. A search report was subsequently and the application was published on 30 June 2010. A Form 10 was therefore due by 30 December 2010. As no Form 10 was filed by 14 December 2010, the Office issued a Form 10 reminder letter to the attorneys. No response was received and the application was treated as withdrawn and was duly terminated with effect from 31 December 2010.
On 1 March 2012 the office received a letter from the attorneys asking when they might expect to receive the substantive examination report on this application. On 6 March 2012 the IPO informed the attorneys that the case had been terminated due to failure to file Form 10 and that it was now too late to either file the relevant form or to request reinstatement of the application under section 20A and rule 32.The attorneys filed the Form 10 on 13 April 2012, explaining that it was originally intended to file the Form 10 with the application but mistakenly, it was not mailed to the IPO along with the other documents filed. It was further explained that working on the basis that Form 10 had indeed been filed, the attorneys’ internal records were updated as if it had been, which led to no internal alerts being generated. It was also stated that no Form 10 reminder letter had ever been received at their offices. It was argued that failure to receive the Form 10 reminder letter was attributable either to an irregularity within the IPO or alternatively to a failure of a communication service. As such it was requested that the Comptroller extend the time prescribed by for filing Form 10 under the provisions of rule 107 or rule 111 respectively. The Office’s view was that there was no scope under r.107 or r.111 to extend the requested time period.
A hearing was requested at which the rule 107 ground was not pursued by the applicant leaving only a) the r.111 objection and b) an objection which the Office had raised prior to the hearing that as the application had been terminated, an extension of time under r.111 would not reverse the terminated status of the application. At the hearing, Counsel for the applicant addressed both issues, but requested an extension of time to gather more evidence on the former point. This was granted.
In his decision, the HO made it clear that he only needed to decide the latter point if the former was successful. The HO concluded that the failure to request substantive examination on time was, for the purposes of r.111 mainly attributable to the non-filing, by the attorneys, of Patents Form 10 at application stage, whilst at the same time mistakenly recording on their internal records system that Form 10 had indeed been filed. He accepted that other factors had contributed to the overall failure, but found that the failure to file Form 10 was not wholly or mainly attributable to the failure a communication service. He therefore concluded that he could not extend the period for filing the request for substantive examination of the application under the terms of r.111. As such, he did not need to determine whether the terminated status of the application could be reversed.

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o00613, O/006/13

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472195

Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc (Patent): IPO 23 Jan 2013

IPO The invention is concerned with the configuration, monitoring and control of complex process plants, and with allowing a process plant operator to create or configure process plant displays and interfaces in order to monitor and control the plant. The operator conducts a search (e.g. a keyword search) of interface modules, and so identifies and then selects those which he wishes to incorporate into the existing process plant interfaces or displays. Once the desired interface modules are incorporated, the relevant pieces of the process plant equipment are controlled or configured accordingly.
The hearing officer followed the steps set out in Aerotel in order to determine whether the invention was excluded from patentability. He concluded that the alleged contribution made by the invention lay in providing an improved way of creating a process plant operator interface, and did not extend to providing an improved process plant control system. He found that this contribution fell solely within excluded matter, as it was no more than a program for a computer.

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o03513, O/035/13

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472162

Motocaddy Limited v Stollery (Patent): IPO 4 Jan 2013

IPO The decision relates to a request for review of opinion 04/12. The patent relates to an electrically powered golf trolley having a USB socket which can be used to power an electrical component (e.g. a portable music player), and means to support such a component. The opinion related to the question of whether another golf trolley infringed the patent and found that there was no infringement. The proprietor requested a review on the grounds that the examiner had wrongly construed the claim. The Hearing Officer found that the examiner had not made an error of principle or reached a conclusion that was clearly wrong, and therefore refused to set aside the opinion.

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o00313, O/003/13

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472176

Obrist Closures Switzerland Gmbh, Hindle and Bull (Patent): IPO 4 Jan 2013

IPO An uncontested application was filed by Martin Carey Bull under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Martin Carey Bull should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Derek John Hindle in the published patent application and granted patent for the invention. It was directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as a joint inventor be prepared for the published patent application and granted patent for the invention.

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o00513

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472179

BW Industries Limited (Patent): IPO 22 Jan 2013

IPO The 7th year renewal fee was not paid and the patent ceased on 28 November 2009. An application for restoration was filed on 3 May 2011 within the 19 months prescribed by rule 41(1) (a) of the Patents Rules.
The patent application EP1573142 was granted to Framing Solutions PLC (FS) with effect from 19 July 2006. On 8 December 2008 the proprietor entered into a Sale and Licence Agreement with BW Industries Limited (BW); the terms of that agreement placed an obligation on FS to keep the patent in force by paying the renewal fees or, on failure to do so to offer to assign the patent to BW.
The relevant period for paying the 7th year renewal fee was from 28 August 2009 to 31 May 2010. On 25 March 2010 FS went into administration; on 27 September 2010 BW contacted the administrators and the patent was assigned to them on 15 March 2011.
The attorney for BW argued that the failure to pay the renewal fee was clearly unintentional because the company was in administration and was clearly unable to pay it. The Office’s response was that failure to pay due to a lack of funds could not be unintentional.
The Hearing Officer was not satisfied that during the period 28 August 2009 up to the administration of FS on 25th March 2010 the failure to pay was unintentional. However, during the period 25th March 2010 to 31 May 2010 the administrators stood in the position of the proprietor and were responsible for the patent. Accepting the evidence of their intent at face value i.e. had they known of the obligation to pay the renewal fee then it would have been paid, the Hearing Officer concluded that on the balance of probabilities the absence of that knowledge led to the failure and that failure was unintentional. She therefore ordered that the patent be restored.

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o03413, O/034/13

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472157

Motocaddy Limited v Bridle (Patent): IPO 4 Jan 2013

IPO The decision relates to a request for review of opinion 02/12. The patent relates to an electrically powered golf trolley having a USB socket which can be used to power an electrical component (e.g. a portable music player), and means to support such a component. The opinion related to the question of whether another golf trolley infringed the patent and found that there was no infringement. The proprietor requested a review on the grounds that the examiner had wrongly construed the claim. The Hearing Officer found that the examiner had not made an error of principle or reached a conclusion that was clearly wrong, and therefore refused to set aside the opinion.

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o00213

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472175

Robert Bosch Gmbh, Ulrich Bohne, Eugen Hild, Heiko Roehm, Klaus Baumgartner and Daniel Dockner (Patent): IPO 21 Jan 2013

IPO Application under section 13(3) was filed by Robert Bosch GmbH to remove Klaus Baumgartner and Daniel Dockner as joint inventors. Ulrich Bohne, Eugen Hild, Heiko Roehm, Klaus Baumgartner and Daniel Dockner were invited to file counter-statements in relation to the proceedings but failed to do so. As such, the comptroller considered the application to be unopposed and found that both Klaus Baumgartner and Daniel Dockner should be removed as joint inventors in the published patent application and granted patent for GB2395460. The comptroller also directed that an addendum slip be prepared removing Klaus Baumgartner and Daniel Dockner as joint inventors for the published patent application and granted patents for the invention.

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o03013

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472182

Accenture Global Services Limited (Patent): IPO 4 Jan 2013

IPO The application relates to a method and computer program for predicting the cost of emerging technologies. The invention applied standard S curves to certain data points and also enabled the impact of various drivers on the predicted costs to be graphically represented.
Applying the the Aerotel/Macrossan test, the hearing officer decided that the contribution made by the invention fell solely within excluded matter. The application was refused as being a progam for a computer, a method of doing business and a mathematical method as such

Judges:

P Thorpe

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o00413, O/004/13

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472154

Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc: CA 5 Apr 2013

The court gave its reasons for allowing the claimant to bring additional witness evidence as to confusion as opposed to survey evidence.

Judges:

Longmore, Lewison LJJ, Sir Robin Jacob

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 319

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 29-Apr-2010
Response to request for clarification of reference to the ECJ. . .
ECJ Opinion – Interflora And Others v Marks and Spencer plc, Flowers Direct Online Limited ECJ 24-Mar-2011
ECJ (Opinion) Trade marks – Keyword advertising corresponding to the trade mark of a competitor of the advertiser – Trade marks with a reputation – Blurring – Tarnishment – Free-riding – Directive 89/104 – . .
ECJ – Interflora And Others v Marks and Spencer plc, Flowers Direct Online Limited ECJ 22-Sep-2011
ECJ Trade marks – Keyword advertising on the internet – Selection by the advertiser of a keyword corresponding to a competitor’s trade mark with a reputation – Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 5(1)(a) and (2) – . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 20-Jun-2012
Application for permission to to adduce witness evidence at trial from witnesses gathered from two pilot surveys. . .
Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v Interflora Inc and Another CA 20-Nov-2012
The court gave guidance on the use of surveys in trials for passing off and trade mark infringement.
Lewison LJ reviewed the practice of conducting interviews and surveys in passing off cases: ‘The upshot of this review is that courts have . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 21-Feb-2013
‘The Claimants (‘Interflora’) seek the permission of the Court to adduce in evidence the witness statements of 13 witnesses at the trial of this action scheduled for mid April 2013. Interflora do not accept that they need the Court’s permission, but . .
Decision – Interflora Inc v Marks and Spencer Plc CA 22-Mar-2013
Interflora had been refused permision to adduce survey evidence, but now appealed against refusal of permission to adduce evidence of confusion by witness statements.
Held: Appeal allowed. Reasons to follow. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 15-Apr-2013
The defendant objected to the introduction of certain evidence by the claimant under a Civil Evidence Act notice. Claimants seeking to adduce academic journals as expert evidence . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 21-May-2013
Mark use in search engine was infringing use
The claimant mark owner alleged that the defendant, in paying a search engine to use the claimants mark as a search keyword was infringing its rights. The defendant argued that the use of the same sign in different contexts could amount to a . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 12-Jun-2013
The court considered the form of the injunction requested to give effect to the earlier full judgment in the case brought, requiring the defendant to discontinue any use of the terms complained of as infringing the claimant’s registered marks as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Evidence

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472114

El Corte Ingles, Sa v Office For Harmonisation In The Internal Market: ECFI 20 Mar 2013

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings -Application for Community word mark CLUB GOURMET – Earlier national figurative mark CLUB DEL GOURMET, EN . . El Corte Ingles – Relative ground for refusal – Lack of similarity between the goods and services – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Arguments and evidence adduced for the first time before the General Court

Citations:

T-571/11, [2013] EUECJ T-571/11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 8(1)(b)

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471944

DLP Ltd, Re UK Intellectual Property Office Decision: PatC 16 Nov 2007

First appeal before the court under the new scheme for ‘Comptroller’s opinions’. It raises two important issues:
i) Should this court entertain such an appeal at all?
ii) If it does, what approach should it adopt?

Judges:

Mr Justice Kitchin

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2669 (Pat), [2008] 1 All ER 839, [2008] Bus LR 778

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.261326