By Yasmin Churcher
The first of a bi-annual series of IP training seminars for junior lawyers. The seminar was hosted by Rosie Burbidge and Arty Rajendra of Rouse Legal with input from Chris Aikens, a barrister from 11 South Square. The panel of three provided a gentle walk through the workings of the Patent County Court, what sort of cases predominantly are heard there, the costs ceiling, length of hearing (usually 1 day hearings) and the who presiding judges are.
From Rouse legal’s research over the period January 2012 to January 2013 of all PCC cases reported, 26% of all rights litigated were patent cases which incidentally are never combined with other IP rights. The type of business these cases came from included life sciences and consumer goods, with the majority from the field of technology. Infringement was found in 44% of cases; 36% of patents were revoked.
Copyright represented 22% of all rights litigated, with the majority of cases being represented by consumer goods; infringement was found in 90% of cases
Trade marks represented 18% of all rights litigated again the majority of cases were derived from the consumer goods business although one technology and one life science case was represented; infringement was held in 60% of cases.
Designs represented 13% of all cases litigated with the predominant number of cases being derived from the consumer goods sector. Infringement was found in all the cases.
Examples were also provided of representative patents (Unilever v SC Johnson: self-cleaning shower and Liversidge v Abbott: automatic medical injector), trade marks (Ghias (t/a Griller) v Ikram (t/a the Griller original), passing off (Lumos v Sweet Squared; W.S Foster & Son Ltd v Brooks Brothers UK Ltd; Allen v Redshaw), design (Gimex v The Chill Bag Company; Kohler Mira Ltd v Bristan Group Ltd) and copyrights (Abraham Moon v Thornber; Temple Island v New English Teas) in dispute to give an idea of the subject matter under scrutiny.
Much was packed into a short space of time but provided a flavour of good things to come. The company was well informed and congenial making for IP exchange of the best kind. We await with anticipation the next IP unzipped seminar.
The first of a bi-annual series of IP training seminars for junior lawyers. The seminar was hosted by Rosie Burbidge and Arty Rajendra of Rouse Legal with input from Chris Aikens, a barrister from 11 South Square. The panel of three provided a gentle walk through the workings of the Patent County Court, what sort of cases predominantly are heard there, the costs ceiling, length of hearing (usually 1 day hearings) and the who presiding judges are.
From Rouse legal’s research over the period January 2012 to January 2013 of all PCC cases reported, 26% of all rights litigated were patent cases which incidentally are never combined with other IP rights. The type of business these cases came from included life sciences and consumer goods, with the majority from the field of technology. Infringement was found in 44% of cases; 36% of patents were revoked.
Copyright represented 22% of all rights litigated, with the majority of cases being represented by consumer goods; infringement was found in 90% of cases
Trade marks represented 18% of all rights litigated again the majority of cases were derived from the consumer goods business although one technology and one life science case was represented; infringement was held in 60% of cases.
Designs represented 13% of all cases litigated with the predominant number of cases being derived from the consumer goods sector. Infringement was found in all the cases.
Examples were also provided of representative patents (Unilever v SC Johnson: self-cleaning shower and Liversidge v Abbott: automatic medical injector), trade marks (Ghias (t/a Griller) v Ikram (t/a the Griller original), passing off (Lumos v Sweet Squared; W.S Foster & Son Ltd v Brooks Brothers UK Ltd; Allen v Redshaw), design (Gimex v The Chill Bag Company; Kohler Mira Ltd v Bristan Group Ltd) and copyrights (Abraham Moon v Thornber; Temple Island v New English Teas) in dispute to give an idea of the subject matter under scrutiny.
Much was packed into a short space of time but provided a flavour of good things to come. The company was well informed and congenial making for IP exchange of the best kind. We await with anticipation the next IP unzipped seminar.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment