Patent construction after Amgen: are patent claims construed more widely or narrowly than previously?

Legal context. This article considers the UK Courts' approachto patent construction since the House of Lords' decision inKirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited, which washanded down in October 2004, and seeks to examine whether theUK Courts' construction of patents is wider or narrower thanpreviously. Key points. The available data appear to suggest that thereis little difference in outcome, whether the old Improver testis applied or the new Kirin-Amgen test; of more significanceremains the nature of the wording of the patent claims themselvesand the correct identification by the trial judge of the inventionunderlying the patent. Practical significance. By eschewing a literal approach andrefining the test used in order to ensure both compliance withthe EPC and consistency with courts in other European countries,the UK Courts continue to provide an attractive forum for resolutionof patent disputes.     

论专利无效诉讼中的“循环诉讼”问题

我国专利无效诉讼领域长期存在"循环诉讼"的问题。针对这一问题,目前主要有民事诉讼途径、行政附带民事诉讼途径和当事人诉讼途径等几种解决方案。在中国现实法治语境下,当事人诉讼途径与前两种解决途径相比,成本低、效益高,更具有现实性和可操作性,是解决专利无效诉讼中"循环诉讼"问题的最佳途径。     

Beyond a “Victims’ Right”: Truth-Finding Power and Procedure at the ICC

The drafters of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court were presented with a unique opportunity to shape the future of victim participation in international criminal legal proceedings. They were also faced with a critical dilemma – how can the International Criminal Court promote the interests of victims while simultaneously protecting the accused’s fair trial rights? In many respects the final draft of the Rome Statute left the task of defining the parameters of these potentially competing interests to the Court. As a result, a body of case-law has emerged, highlighting textual ambiguities in the Rome Statute and giving rise to novel developments in sphere of victim participation. Amongst the most prominent of these developments is the recognition of the right of victims to introduce evidence at trial. However, viewing this procedure simply as a fixture of the International Criminal Court’s regime of victim participation masks its true significance and potential. This article explores the idea that the Court’s approach to the evidentiary procedure regulating victim participation has given birth to quasi-investigative powers that have the potential to dramatically reconfigure the future of international criminal litigation.     

Chewing the fat over the High Court's judgment on the world's best-selling drug

The English Patents Court has recently refused a declarationof non-infringement in relation to the compound patent coveringAtorvastatin (Lipitor), the world's best-selling drug, but founda patent relating to its hemicalcium salt invalid for lack ofnovelty and obviousness; this decision is seen as a victoryfor Pfizer since the invalidation of the hemicalcium salt patenthas not shortened its period of exclusivity.     

Art and copyright: some current issues

Legal context IP lawyers are increasingly having to advise onart-related copyright matters. Current issues include the strongcopyright protection given to images, uncertainty in the protectiongiven to innovative contemporary art works, problems in applyingthe fair dealing exceptions to art works, and the increasingrelevance of other IP rights. Key points Image rights receive strong protection - photographsof public domain art works are protected in the basis of long-standingauthority (although there are arguments against such a view).Whether an artistic work is protected by copyright depends onwhether the work falls into the closed list of categories insection 4 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (painting,drawing, engraving, sculpture, etc). Much contemporary art doesnot fall neatly within these categories. Categorisation willalso be in issue as far as Artist's Resale Right is concerned.There is lack of understanding amongst internet artists aboutthe copyright restrictions that apply to digital works and concernsare raised more generally about the lawfulness of appropriationart. Practical significance Lawyers advising artists and those exploitingartistic works need to be aware of the potentially broad scopegiven in UK law to protecting works of art (including photographsof public domain works such as Old Master paintings) and tothe conflict between copyright and the practice of appropriationart. Where infringement claims are being considered fair dealingarguments and the possible impact of human rights law in guaranteeingfreedom of expression will need to be carefully considered.There has been little reported litigation on moral rights butthis aspect cannot be ignored. Trade mark rights, design lawand passing off may also need to be considered.     

Inter Partes Proceedings and the Reform of the Community Trade Mark Implementing Regulation

Legal and practical context. Commission Regulation 1041/2005of 29 June 2005, which amends the Community Trade Mark ImplementingRegulation, entered into force on 25 July 2005. Substantialamendments are brought to inter partes proceedings, that isoppositions and applications in revocation or in invalidity,and appeal procedures. Key points. The rules governing the substantiation of the earlierrights and time limits are now stricter. Also, the new regimeaims at circumscribing the consequences of the rather broadinterpretation which the Court of First Instance gave over thelast two years to the notion of functional continuity betweenthe opposition division and the Boards of Appeal. Practical significance. The authors analyse the new provisionscontained in the Community Trade Mark Implementing Regulationin the light of the latest case law of the Court of First Instance,in order to provide practitioners with a simplified guide.     

More haste, less speed? BlackBerry in the United Kingdom

The Patents Court for England and Wales has provided importantguidance on the use of the ‘streamlined procedure’for patent cases. This case also highlights how the conflictbetween the procedures followed in patent cases in differentcountries in Europe can affect the tactics employed by litigants.     

Exclusion payments in patent settlements: a legal and economic perspective

Legal context. The application of antitrust law to assess settlementsof patent litigation raises difficult issues concerning theappropriate balance of patent law and competition policy. Recentprivate and public invocations of US antitrust law to challengesettlement agreements covering pharmaceutical patents have broughtthese issues to the forefront. The agreements share the commonfeature of an ‘exclusion payment’ from a brand-namedrug manufacturer (the patentee) to a generic drug manufacturer(the accused infringer) in exchange for a promise by the genericcompany to refrain from marketing its product for some time.US federal courts that have examined these agreements have variedin their approach and conclusions regarding the appropriateantitrust analysis to be applied to these settlements. Key points. This article argues that informed antitrust analysisof such agreements must take due note of the ‘probabilistic’nature of patent property rights. Practical significance. The article concludes that exclusionpayments fall outside the scope of a patent's exclusionary scopeand thus are subject to antitrust scrutiny. It demonstratesthat barring anticompetitive exclusion payments in settlementnegotiation prevents collusive bargains that harm consumer welfarewithout discouraging efficient settlements.     

Mediation of Intellectual Property disputes

Legal and practical context. Mediation can bring real benefitsin avoiding protracted and costly IP litigation and is suitablefor most IP disputes except where a matter of principle, suchas construction of patent claims, requires resolution. Key points. Mediation may be used at any time to resolve a dispute.The courts can give robust encouragement by means of costs sanctionsand ADR orders but cannot compel the use of mediation. The Proceedsof Crime Act 2002 may apply to some mediated settlements, particularlythose involving trade mark and copyright infringement disputes. Practical significance. The courts and the Patent Office areactively seeking ways to encourage mediation of IP disputesand the Patent Office has announced the setting up of a mediationscheme.     

Closing the Floodgates on Privacy Class Actions: Lloyd v Google LLC

In Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50, the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal's decision, which had allowed a claim under the Data Protection Act 1998 to proceed as a representative action under CPR 19.6. This is significant because the Court of Appeal's decision arguably paved the way for further data protection/privacy claims to be brought as opt-out ‘class actions’ using this procedure. This case note summarises the Supreme Court decision and assesses its implications for both the procedural law of collective redress and the substantive law of privacy in England. It argues that the Supreme Court's reasoning in relation to both of these areas is sound as a matter of precedent and statutory construction. As a matter of public policy, the decision is likely to re-enliven debate about the availability of collective redress in English law and whether the existing collective proceedings regime should be broadened.     

中日刑事非常救济程序比较研究

刑事非常救济程序是刑事诉讼的最后一道屏障 ,其设计得科学与否 ,直接关系着刑事审判的质量和程序的公正。日本的刑事司法制度独具特色 ,其程序设计有不少值得借鉴的因素     

The media coverage of court proceedings in Europe: Striking a balance between freedom of expression and fair process

Press curiosity to report on legal proceedings has been a salacious feature in history of mass media. Pre-trial comment, media coverage of press proceedings and the protection of privacy of the defendant are some of the main legal issues which are raised by the ambiguous relation of media to court proceedings. The Internet revolution and the emergence of the blogosphere have added a new dimension to the analysis of these legal issues. A balance between freedom of expression and the guarantee of a fair unprejudiced process has to be achieved in the context of application of legal mechanisms of protection of the justice’s authority, such as contempt of court. As regards the question of media coverage of the court proceedings, the decision of the UK Supreme Court on May 2011 to permit television coverage of its hearings demonstrates an important shift as regards how publicity is perceived by the administration of justice in the UK, while there is a certain disparity between national legislators in the way they deal with this issue at a European level. The legal question of the protection of the defendant through the effective guarantee of the presumption of innocence and, consequently, that of a fair trial is often combined with the debate about the right of the defendant’s privacy not only when there is a pressing social need for information to the public before or during the court trial but also many years after the end of the legal proceedings.     

Strong trade marks and the likelihood of confusion in European law

Legal context. One of the fundamental assumptions of trade marklaw is that provision should be made to prevent the registrationor commercial exploitation of trade marks that are likely tobe confused with earlier marks. The justification for this assumptionis however unclear. Is it to protect the expectation of itsowner that a trade mark will provide a comfort zone, an areawithin which other traders simply may not enter? Is it to encourageinvestment in the development of a relationship between thetrade mark owner and his prospective customers by offering interference-freemarketing opportunities? Is it to protect the efficiency ofthe market by facilitating the making of decisions by consumersas to which product or process they wish to purchase? Or isit to protect the vulnerable consumer against the personal consequencesof his inattention or inability to discern the differences betweenproducts or services? Key points. This article examines the development of Europeanlaw relating to the protection of strong trade marks, thosewhich are highly distinctive or well known, against similarmarks that may or may not be likely to cause consumer confusion.It demonstrates the manner in which the European Court of Justiceseeks to address the likelihood of confusion in terms whichappear to draw more from legal abstractions than from marketrealities. After giving a favourable review of the controversialdecision of that court in the PICARO/PICASSO case, the articlelists further issues which European trade mark litigation hasso far failed to address. Practical significance. Armed with an understanding of the principlesemployed by the European Court of Justice, trade mark proprietorsin Europe will obtain a better appreciation of the strategiesto be used in either challenging competitors' marks in courtor adopting commercial measures to combat them.     

Markem v Zipher--the Court of Appeal provides guidance on entitlement proceedings

Legal and practical context. The Markem v Zipher Court of Appealjudgment provides useful guidance on patent entitlement proceedingsand, more generally, on the conduct of litigation. Key points. (i) Patent entitlement. To bring an entitlementaction under sections 8, 12, and 37 a party must invoke a breachof some rule of law. Validity is only relevant in entitlementproceedings where a patent or part of it is clearly and unarguablyinvalid. A claim-by-claim approach is not appropriate in proceedingsunder sections 8, 12, and 37 and ‘invention’ inthese sections refers to information in the specification. Theproper approach to entitlement should be to identify who contributedto the invention and determine whether he has any rights tothe invention. (ii) Litigation generally. A witness should be cross-examinedas to the truthfulness of his evidence whenever a party wishesto challenge that evidence. Where a party has more than onecause of action relating to the same factual background, considerationshould be given to bringing all causes of action in the sameproceedings to avoid a future claim being struck out for abuseof process. Practical significance. This case highlights the importanceof a properly pleaded case and of the ongoing need to reviewthe case strategy throughout proceedings.     

Walking the groundless threats minefield

Legal context. It is one of the peculiarities of UK law thatthreatening litigation of IP rights can, in some circumstances,give rise to an action for "groundless threats". This has thepotential to cause great disruption to the right-holder's case.There is even the potential for professional advisors to endup in the dock where they made the threat on their client'sbehalf, raising the possibility of a conflict of interest preventingthe advisers from continuing to act. Key points. To minimise the risk of these scenarios, intellectualproperty law advisors, be they patent or trade mark attorneysor solicitors, should be aware of the provisions that governgroundless threats actions for the various IP rights, particularlyin light of the recent changes brought in by the Patents Act2004 and the further changes expected to the groundless threatsprovisions relating to designs. These alterations increasinglycomplicate what has always been a nebulous area of the law.In addition, there is considerable tension between the "talkfirst, sue later" philosophy underlying the Civil ProcedureRules and the "sue first, talk later" approach traditionallyused to circumvent threats actions. Reckitt recently confirmedthat the groundless threats provisions, while running counterto the purpose of the CPR, cannot be ignored by the Courts.This article provides an overview of the current state of thegroundless threats provisions that apply to the various IP rights,and considers how IP owners and their advisors can best navigatethe groundless threats minefield. Practical significance. Groundless threats form a complex andchanging area of IP law in the UK, which advisers need to takeinto account in virtually every dispute. Amendments made toSection 70 of the Patents Act 1977 have not provided a threatspanacea to patent holders and it remains to be seen how thesection will be interpreted by the Courts. What is clear isthat the threats provisions contained in the IP legislationwill remain in force in one form or another for the foreseeablefuture and that they remain a trap for the unwary.     

Claim construction and the extent of patent protection: A comparative analysis of the Phillips en banc Federal Circuit decision

Legal context. The United Kingdom's House of Loads in Kirin-Amgenand the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitin Phillips addressed similar issues with respect to the methodologyof claim interpretation and the fundamental rules and policiesfor determining the extent of patent protection. This articlewill review Phillips and Kirin-Amgen from the comparative lawperspective. It will compare the UK and US rules and patentpolicies with their German and Japanese counterparts, discussingthe bases for these differences and examining them from theperspective of patent policies, specifically with respect tofair protection and legal certainty. Key points. Despite the use of the same rule and methodology,legal commentators and patent professionals emphasize the differencesin the extent of patent protection in different jurisdictions.Such differences result from the availability of the doctrineof equivalents. For jurisdictions such as the UK, the US andJapan, where courts seldom apply the doctrine of equivalents,the differences result from the way in which the courts conductclaim construction. These courts use the perspective of a hypotheticalperson to support a broad or narrow claim construction, reflectingthe weight given to the competing patent policies. Practical significance. This article cites key cases for claimconstruction and the doctrine of equivalents in four major patentjurisdictions: the UK, the US, Germany and Japan. Knowledgeof the case law trends in these jurisdictions is essential fordrafting patents documents and enforcing patents.     

Injunctive relief in US patent practice

Legal context. Injunctive relief is available in civil actionsin the United States. Patent litigation is no exception andthe US patent statute explicitly permits it. Because it is aneffective remedy, injunctive relief is commonly sought togetherwith the monetary (legal) remedies which are available to patentowners when enforcing patent rights. Key points. On 15 May 2006 the US Supreme Court in eBay, Incet al v MercExchange, LLC altered the prevailing practice sayingthat ‘the decision whether to grant or deny injunctiverelief rests within the equitable discretion of the districtcourts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistentwith traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes noless than in other cases governed by such standards’. Practical significance. This article will focus on the availabilityof permanent injunctions in patent infringement actions in lightof the Supreme Court's recent ruling in eBay, Inc et al v MercExchange,LLC.