Search for: "RPC Inc"
Results 61 - 80
of 142
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 May 2015, 4:37 am
Lord Neuberger reviewed a long list of authorities of the House of Lords, the Privy Council and that of the Court of Appeal in Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar NP [1984] FSR 413, 462. [read post]
26 Apr 2015, 6:14 pm
As an example if one considers how inventive step was assessed in Teva UK Limited & Teva Pharmaceuticals Limited v Leo Pharma A/S & Leo Laboratories Limited [2014] EWHC 3096 (Pat) (see Katpost here) one sees that for a pharmaceutical formulation the following criteria may be relevant:* obvious to try * reasonable expectation of success * prejudice * inventive selection * the Technograph test (Technograph v Mills & Rockley [1972] RPC 346) * synergyMr… [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 3:06 am
There was also a post about the case on the intermittently active RPC Privacy Blog (its first since 4 November 2014). [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 4:27 pm
Kitchin LJ referred to Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc & Ors [1990] RPC 341 when explaining the three elements that a claimant must establish in order to succeed in such a claim at [33] and summarised them in [43] as follows: “[A Claimant] must show that he has a relevant goodwill, that the activities of the defendant amount to a misrepresentation that he has endorsed or approved the goods or services of which he complains, and that these… [read post]
21 Oct 2014, 12:00 am
In Hospira UK Ltd v Genentech Inc[2014] EWHC 1094 (Pat), noted by the IPKat here, Birss J had to deal with inventive step of an ‘incremental’ invention, and he found the inventive concept, which related to a dosage regimen, to be obvious. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 4:01 pm
Demand for places was far greater than supply, so Eleonora is running the event again on 23 September, in the offices of London-based law firm RPC. [read post]
27 Jul 2014, 5:07 pm
On Tuesday 29 July 2014, there will be an application in the case of Hegglin v Google Inc. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 3:54 pm
Kyko Global Inc. v. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 7:13 am
He referred in particular to comments by Laddie J in Mercury Communications Ltd v Mercury Interactive (UK) Ltd [1995] FSR 850, at 863-865; by Jacob J in Laboratoire De La Mer Trade Marks [2002] FSR 51, at [19]; and by Aldous LJ in Thomson Holidays v Norwegian Cruise Line [2002] EWCA Civ 1828; [2003] RPC 32, at [29]. [read post]
10 Jun 2014, 5:11 am
Interflora Inc v Marks and Spencer plc [2012] [noted by the IPKat here] established that, even if most people are not deceived, passing off can still be proved. [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 9:23 am
The Court of Appeal endorsed the decision of Ravenscoft v Herbert and New English Library Ltd [1980] RPC 193, where there was a finding of copyright infringement by the author of a novel who took a substantial part of a historical work, The Spear of Destiny. [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 2:03 pm
Ries & Sons, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 8:40 am
[He lists five of the "best known", which include just one IP case: Biogen Inc v Medeva plc [1996] UKHL 18, but mis-cited as [1977] RPC 1]. [read post]
9 Jan 2014, 4:31 pm
This should be the end of the story and this was supported in Genetech Inc’s Patent [1989] RPC 147. [read post]
19 Dec 2013, 4:56 pm
(Enlarged Board of Appeal in G2/98).Priority can be lost by:narrowing down the disclosure from the priority document in a manner which the invention could not be derived directly and unambiguously from it (Pharmacia Corp v Merck & Co Inc [2002] RPC 41); orwidening or generalizing from the priority disclosure (Beloit Technologies Inc and another v Valmet Paper Machinery Inc and another [1995] RPC 7005 and Unilin)The story continues in Part II. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 5:33 am
McAfee, Inc., 2013 WL 3200658 (N.D. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 7:45 am
Merpel notes that, curiously, both the majority and the minority invoked the judgment of Jacob J (as he then was) in Neutrogena Corporation v Golden Ltd [1996] RPC 473 in support of their respective views. [read post]
16 Jun 2013, 9:42 pm
This is Norman's take on the decision, flavoured with some delicious thoughts of his own: Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Inc 12–398, 569 U. [read post]
27 May 2013, 4:18 am
The first is Unilever Plc v Gillette (UK) Ltd [1989] RPC 583, 609, where Mustill LJ said that, in order to show that a defendant was secondarily liable for infringement of a patent, “there [was no] need for a common design to infringe”, as it was “enough if the parties combine to secure the doing of acts which in the event prove to be infringements”. [read post]
15 May 2013, 10:47 am
HTC v Apple is not formally inconsistent with Fujitsu Ltd's Application [1997] RPC 608 (CA) and Gale’s Application [1991] RPC 305 (CA), but those cases might very well be decided differently today. [read post]
