Bird & Bird Intellectual Property

On December 18, 2024, the Local Division (LD) Munich has issued its first SEP decision involving a FRAND defence. This is only the second decision of the UPC involving a FRAND defence since the UPC has come to life in summer 2023. In its decision the LD Munich has ordered an injunction enforceable in the six UPC Member States Germany, Belgium, Italy, Finland, France and Sweden (the UPCA countries in which the patent is in force) as requested by Huawei. It also ordered that Netgear was liable for damages as well as that it must provide information and render account, remove the infringing products from channels of commerce, definitively remove them from the channels of commerce and must hand them over to the bailiff for destruction. The LD Munich dismissed Netgear’s non-infringement arguments, Netgear’s counterclaim for revocation of the patent in suit and Netgear’s FRAND defence. Besides interesting FRAND findings, the LD Munich also took a new approach regarding the exhaustion defence raised by Netgear in that it ruled on the exhaustion at least in part even though it was raised only for some of the attacked products. The redacted ruling can be found on the website of the UPC in German language only (https://lnkd.in/eHPMzRxv ). However, please find below a machine translation for your convenience. #UPC #unifiedpatentcourt #FRAND #intellectualproperty #patents

🏛️ Easy Does It: High Court rules against easyGroup in trade mark tussle 🏛️ Sharon Mutizira's latest article, first published in WTR Daily, explores the High Court decision in easyGroup Ltd v Easy Live (Services) Ltd. This case delves into the complexities of trade mark law, particularly around the use of common or descriptive words like 'easy' 📖 Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/eu7xJdT6 #trademarklaw #intellectualproperty #infringement #ukhighcourt

🚨 Finally! The CJEU has announced its preliminary ruling in the joined cases of C-119/22 and C-149/22 🚨 New CJEU case law on the validity of SPCs for fixed combinations of a compound together with a second compound that was already in the public domain - After quite a bit of a wait the CJEU today announced its highly anticipated preliminary ruling in the joined cases of C-119/22 and C-149/22. The decision can be downloaded here: https://lnkd.in/dD9shw8G   According to the third keynote, Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that a product consisting of two active ingredients (A+B) is protected by a basic patent, within the meaning of that provision, where A and B are expressly mentioned in the claims of that patent and the specification of that patent teaches that A may be used as a medicinal product for human use alone or in combination with B, which is an active ingredient in the public domain at the filing date or priority date of that patent, provided that the combination of those two active ingredients necessarily falls under the invention covered by the same patent. For the combination of ezetimibe and simvastatin, which was the combination at hand in C-149/22 the CJEU notes that it is not in dispute that simvastatin was in the public domain at the priority date of that patent and it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that that patent does not disclose a combined effect of that active ingredient with ezetimibe that would differ from the sum of the effects of each of those active ingredients taken separately. A special thanks to Oliver Jan Jüngst and Jan van Dieck who were part of the team representing our client Teva in these proceedings. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/eB4tC5nM #CJEU #SPC #patents #legalupdate #pharmaceuticals #intellectualproperty

November 2024 saw the Unified Patent Court #UPC issue its first decision involving a Standard Essential Patent #SEP and a #FRAND defence.   The Mannheim Local Division (LD) granted Panasonic an injunction enforceable in five European countries, dismissing OPPO’s FRAND objection and counterclaim. To find out more about this landmark UPC decision, please click here: https://lnkd.in/eJYszeC7

📝 Take 4! In the final article of our EU design package series, our expert Ema Bergonier examines how the new EU design package has been updated to reflect the advancements in technology over the last two decades. From virtual and augmented reality to AI-generated designs, the scope of what can be protected has expanded significantly! Key highlights include: ✨ Extended Definitions: Now, virtual designs, animations, and dynamic interfaces can be protected. ✨ Enhanced Representation: Designs can be represented by static, dynamic, or animated images, providing clearer and more comprehensive protection. ✨ Stronger Rights: New regulations should help empower design holders to prevent unauthorised creation, sharing, and distribution of 3D print templates and related software. This overhaul will help ensure that innovative designs receive the protection they deserve in our rapidly evolving technological landscape. Don't miss out on this essential read for anyone involved in design, technology, and intellectual property! 👉 Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/eKxEqCqa #designinnovation #designprotection #intellectualproperty #AI #virtualdeisgns

Newsflash: UK’s New AI and Copyright Consultation! 🚨 The UK government has just launched a new consultation on copyright and AI which is already making waves. 📜💡 In a guest post today on the The IPKat blog, our experts Phil Sherrell and Toby Bond highlight key aspects of this consultation, which is likely to elicit strong views from both sides of the debate. 👉 Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/ex6PpsGY #Copyright #IPLaw #UKReform #DigitalEconomy #IntellectualProperty #TechNews

In our latest article, Julia Präger provides an insightful analysis of a pivotal General Court decision (T-1099/23) that underscores the importance of conceptual differences in trade mark law. This case is a must-read for understanding how well-known facts can influence legal outcomes, even if not explicitly mentioned by the parties. 🔍 Key Insights: The Board of Appeal's independent assessment of conceptual differences. The role of well-known facts in trade mark disputes. The necessity of addressing all potential issues early in the process. 📖 Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/evCnPZsm

📚💥 And we’re back! Our latest article in our new EU design package series is here. This time, our experts Dr. Jan Bärenfänger and María Ángela Fernández Munárriz dive into the novelties for Filing and Examination. What changes should you expect and look forward to? 👉Simplified Multiple Applications: No more "unity of class" requirement. 👉Centralised Filing: EUIPO becomes the one-stop shop for registered EU designs. 👉Streamlined Examination: Less bureaucracy, more efficiency. 👉Modernised Definitions: Embracing digital and virtual innovations. At its core, this reform is about simplifying and modernising the design application process, making it more accessible and efficient for everyone. In reference to Dieter Rams' principle that "good design is as little design as possible," these changes aim to streamline and innovate. Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/deFwezp5 #designwrites #intellectualproperty #Innovation #IP #EUIPO #LegalUpdates

🇦🇺 What does "examination at rest" mean for your design's protection? In a recent decision, the Australian Designs Office confirmed that transient elements, visible only when a product is switched on, cannot be registered as a design. This ruling reinforces the principle that only permanent features in "at rest" states are eligible for protection. Key takeaways: ✍️ Under the Australian Designs Act 2003, the overall appearance of a product resulting from one or more visual features can be registered as a design. ✍️ The Designs Office examines designs "at rest," meaning products are considered switched off during examination. ✍️ Images displayed on a screen when a product is on are not considered visual features for design comparison. Our latest article by Shehana Wijesena explores the implications for products with transient visual features arising from this decision. As the Designs Act undergoes review, there may be future changes to include virtual designs, but for now, the focus remains on permanent features. Read the full article to delve deeper into this ruling and its impact on design law: https://lnkd.in/egCeg2S2 #designprotection #intellectualproperty #australianlaw #designregistration #designwrites

Our latest report of trade mark cases by Katharine Stephens, Nick Cowen, Tristan Sherliker, Sharon Mutizira, Laura Gray, David Pemberton, and Josie Price, explores several court decisions that shape the landscape of trade mark law: 📌 SkyKick v Sky: The Supreme Court ruled that applying for an overly broad specification without a genuine intention to use the mark across all goods and services was an indicator of invalidity for bad faith. 📌 Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus Named Halloumi v Fontana Food: This High Court decision highlighted the difficulties in enforcing trade marks that are commonly used descriptively. 📌 easyGroup v Easy Live (Services): The High Court decided that there was no real likelihood of confusion between the marks EASYLIFE and "easy live", as consumers wouldn't assume easyGroup had a monopoly over the word "easy." 📌 easyGroup v Beauty Perfectionists: The High Court found no likelihood of confusion between easyGroup’s marks and easyCOSMETIC and indicated that the evidence of honest concurrent use pointed away from infringement. 📌 Morley’s (Fast Food) v Nanthakumar: The High Court applied the Supreme Court’s recent decision on joint tortfeasorship in IP claims, ruling that granting licenses for an infringing mark constituted knowingly authorising and procuring trade mark infringement. 🔗 Read more here: https://lnkd.in/gC9Aiyvy #trademarks #intellectualproperty #cipajournal