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.     

ECJ rules on acts of “Extraction” that infringe database right

Four years from the European Court of Justice's seminal rulings on database right in the British Horseracing Board and Fixtures Marketing cases, the Court has once again looked at the extent of protection this right affords. The earlier decisions had suggested the right was weak, with many databases not qualifying for protection and the extent of infringement required being difficult to meet. However, the ECJ's recent ruling in the Directmedia case (C-304/07) handed down in late-2008 is more positive for database owners. Adopting the reasoning of the Advocate General, the ECJ has clarified the types of acts which can constitute infringement of database right and confirmed they are broad in scope. The outcome and implications of the ruling are discussed below.     

ECJ provides further guidance on the ambit of database right

Following on from the European Court of Justice's ruling on database right in the Directmedia case, the Court has looked in more detail at the protection afforded by database right, and provided further clarification of the meaning of ‘extraction’ and ‘substantial’, particularly in relation to modular databases comprised of several sections. The ECJ's ruling is positive for database owners for the most part, bolstering its previous broad interpretation of the acts of ‘extraction’ that can infringe and considering in more detail other points touched on in the Directmedia, British Horseracing Board and Fixtures Marketing cases. This article discusses the outcome and implications of the ruling.     

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.     

MTN: A South African mobile telecommunications group in Africa and Asia

ABSTRACT

The MTN Group, based in South Africa, is a multinational enterprise from an emerging economy (EE-MNE), operating mobile telecommunications networks in Asia and Africa. It was built up by negotiating licences and by acquiring operators, notably Investcom, a Lebanese-owned firm with operations in Asia, Africa and Cyprus. Such opportunities arose from the liberalisation of national markets and the financialisation of the sector. MTN now has licences from some very unattractive governments, to which it pays taxes, provides wire-tapping, collects metadata and censors content. Its business partners have included political parties, cronies of political leaders and individuals on a United Nations asset freeze list. It denies allegations it displaced a rival in Iran by corrupt means. It successfully became a major international operator, but acquisitions have stopped, forcing it to rely on organic growth and new technologies.