We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
A recent case has seen two multinational corporations conduct a
patent battle relating to automatic devices for cleaning showers at
the Patents County Court. In Unilever v S. C. Johnson &
Son [2012] EWPCC 19 Unilever succeeded in revoking a patent of
S.C Johnson and having a second patent declared only partially
valid. However, instead of invoking costs on each side in the
millions, as is common in the Patents Court (the High Court), this
case was fought with more modest resources.
In a Patents Court case each side is usually represented by
patent attorneys, solicitors and barristers. More often than not,
the barrister is a QC, and a junior barrister is also involved. In
this case, the legal representation consisted of junior
intellectual property counsel instructed by firms of patent
attorneys. In the words of the judge, Birss HHJ:
"The action was commenced in the Patents County Court
on 27th July 2011 and has been conducted under the PCC rules. One
might ask whether a case between two multinational corporations is
suitable for the PCC. Since neither side suggested the matter
should be transferred, the question did not arise. I can say this
much. In terms
of the issues to be decided, the case is clearly suitable
for the PCC. There has been no disclosure and the evidence consists
only of reports from in-house experts on both sides. ......... The
trial took 1˝ days. As far as I can tell it has been run
expeditiously and without major cost."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Jose Luis Romanillos, Managing Director and Founder of Finsbury Image Rights (Guernsey), takes a closer look at Guernsey’s world-first image rights legislation.
The High Court has held that Marks and Spencer infringed Interflora's trade marks when it bought keyword terms sold by Google which referenced "interflora" and advertised its own flower service on the back of them.
The High Court has published its judgment in the long-running case of Interflora -v- M&S, which has featured a number of interim rulings that have affected the law on survey evidence.
In a recent High Court judgment, it was held not only that the claimant’s patent for a coffee machine capsule extraction device was not infringed by the supply of compatible capsules by the defendant, but that the patent itself was invalid.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
New EU Patent Court System (Video Content)
