Insights

Paul Harris, Head of Litigation at Dehns, discusses a trial of an account of profits.

In this article, Paul Harris, Dehns’ Head of Litigation, reviews the recent Wineapp Ltd v Johnson case.

In this article, Paul Harris, Dehns’ Head of Litigation, reviews the recent Evans V Joseph Joseph Ltd case which considers the licensing of design rights and the burden of protection.

Paul Harris, Head of Litigation at Dehns, discusses a rare case which highlights the need for caution in both drafting around prior art provided by the inventor/applicant and giving validity opinions on the same.

Will the CJEU follow the Advocate General’s opinion? Paul Harris, Head of Litigation at Dehns, takes a look…

The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) provides a mechanism for accelerating examination of a patent application at a second patent office, if examination work has already been conducted at a first patent office with whom a PPH agreement is in place. If claims of an application have been found acceptable by a first office (often the office of first filing), accelerated examination of a corresponding application at a second office may be requested. The PPH allows a second patent office to make use of relevant work already conducted by a first office when examining an application.

Haakon Thue Lie, IP Consultant in the Dehns Oslo office, shares his thoughts on high growth SMES, referring to new reports from IP Australia, an EUIPO/EPO report and several papers on collaboration, open innovation and IP management.

If one posed to most EUIPO practitioners the question: ‘what do Champagne, sherry, chocolate, yoghurt and rice have in common?’ they may not have a clue. The answer is they have all been protected under the English law of extended passing off.

Using passing off as a way of opposing a later trade mark has had something of a chequered history during the time the UK has been part of the EUIPO system. The use of extended passing off brings with it a further dimension in that the owner of the goodwill is one of many, who claims that there has been some damage as a result of a misrepresentation.

However, the Indo European Foods decision has turned a corner on the understanding of this form of protection and reliance on it.

For all IP practitioners, ranging from those that draft patent specifications, through in house lawyers and outside counsel, that deal with pharmaceuticals, this case is a ‘must read’. For ‘big pharma’ itself, it is a welcome relief following (then) Arnold J’s first instance judgement on how claims with functional and structural limitations should be considered when attacked on the basis of insufficiency, in particular, a lack of plausibility and undue burden.

With the coronavirus pandemic affecting billions of people and millions of businesses around the world throughout 2020 and 2021, there can scarcely have been a more important time for scientific innovation in the race to understand, treat and protect people from the virus. In late spring 2021, we sent a survey to our clients looking at how intellectual property (IP) intensive firms have responded and adapted to the global COVID-19 pandemic throughout 2020, into 2021 and beyond.  This report is based on the responses we received, which highlighted the resilience of innovative and IP intensive businesses during the pandemic, and their bright future.