Source: https://thelawreviews.co.uk/edition/the-intellectual-property-review-edition-8/1196336/united-kingdom
Timestamp: 2020-01-21 09:27:46
Document Index: 574247464

Matched Legal Cases: ['CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ']

United Kingdom - The Intellectual Property Review - Edition 8 - TLR - The Law Reviews
On 26 April 2018, the UK ratified the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (the UPC Agreement). However at the time of writing, it is unclear whether the UK will remain within the proposed Unified Patent Court (UPC) or unitary patent systems if and when they become operational: this will depend, at least in part, upon the legal arrangements governing the UK's relationship with the EU.
Designs that are new and have individual character can be registered with the UKIPO, for the UK, or with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), for the EU (which, at the time of writing, includes the UK).
The EU unregistered Community design right has a broader scope of protection than the UDR, protecting 3D and 2D designs. EU protection lasts for a period of three years from the date on which the relevant design is first made available to the public and pan-European relief is available. At the time of writing, the UK is a member of the EU and where qualification criteria are met EU unregistered Community design right arises covering the UK.
Copyright may subsist, inter alia, in original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, sound recordings, films and broadcasts and typographical arrangements of published editions, provided the work qualifies by its author's nationality or domicile or by the place of first publication of the work. Protection arises automatically when works are recorded in writing or some other form.
A mark can be registered for the UK (with the UKIPO); or as an EU Trademark (EUTM, formerly called a Community Trademark, with the EUIPO, for the EU). (At the time of writing, the UK is a member of the EU). A mark will be registered for specified goods and services listed in the classes of the International Classification of Goods and Services.
A plant variety right entitles the holder to prevent anyone from producing or reproducing, conditioning for the purpose of propagation, offering for sale, selling, exporting, importing or stocking for any of those purposes, the qualifying variety. The term of protection is 30 years from the date of grant (for potatoes, trees and vines); or 25 years from the date of grant (all other cases). Protection is available for the UK (from the UK Plant Variety Rights Office) or for the EU (from the Community Plant Variety Office). (At the time of writing, the UK is a member of the EU).
In a landmark judgment, Actavis v. Eli Lilly,3 the UK Supreme Court swept aside decades of jurisprudence on the assessment of the tort of patent infringement and introduced a doctrine of equivalents in the United Kingdom.
In Unwired Planet v. Huawei,4 the High Court of England and Wales (Patents Court), having determined that patents owned by Unwired Planet were valid, infringed by Huawei and essential to the 3GPP telecommunications standard, determined licence terms that were 'fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory' (FRAND) between the parties. Although only selected UK patents were found valid and infringed, the FRAND licence determined was a global, portfolio licence. This is the first time a global portfolio licence has been determined by a court worldwide. Since Huawei had not been prepared to take a licence on terms found by the court to be FRAND, the High Court also developed new injunctive relief – a FRAND injunction, which would be discharged if Huawei entered into the FRAND licence, and with the parties having liberty to apply to the Court regarding the injunction at the end of the licence term (in 2020, while the patents found valid, infringed and essential would be in force until 2028). The Court of Appeal has since confirmed the approach taken by the High Court.5 A further appeal is listed to be heard by the Supreme Court in October 2019.
Patents to dosing regimens had a difficult year in the UK courts in 2017. In Actavis v. ICOS,6 in three separate judgments, the Court of Appeal made clear the challenges facing patent claims in which the purported invention resides in a dosing regimen. If, by pursuing the clinical trials necessary for marketing authorisation, the claimed dosing regimen would be reached, the fact that at the outset the regimen eventually settled upon would have seemed surprising will not confer inventiveness. The Court of Appeal's approach was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2019.7
In Fujifilm v. AbbVie,8 the High Court of England and Wales (Patents Court) awarded, in a landmark judgment, a novel type of declaratory relief, known as an Arrow declaration,9 to clear the route to market for a product facing a raft of pending patent applications incapable of challenge in the UK courts. The Court concluded that the administration of FKB's proposed products in the treatment of a particular medical indication by a particular dosing regimen would have been obvious at a particular date, and that the Court's declaration of this would serve a useful purpose in view of AbbVie's patent filing strategy and public statements. Declaratory relief of a similar nature was awarded for the second time in Glaxo v Vectura,10 in December 2018.
Plausibility, a concept drawn from case law of the EPO11, has in recent years been developing in the jurisprudence of England and Wales in the context of priority, obviousness, insufficiency and industrial applicability. In 2018, the UK Supreme Court considered its role in the test for insufficiency.12 Guidance on the Supreme Court's test was given by the Patents Court in 2019.13
The proposed UPC and unitary patent system is discussed in Sections I, above, and IV and V, below. The UK ratified the UPC Agreement in 2018. However, at the time of writing, the timetable for the new system becoming operational, and the UK's continued involvement in it, remain uncertain.
iii Shape trademarks
In Nestlé v. Cadbury14 the Court of Appeal ruled that the shape of a four-fingered Kit Kat bar (without a Kit Kat logo embossed on each finger) could not be registered as a UK trademark. Concerning an inherently non-distinctive mark, in demonstrating that the mark has acquired distinctiveness, it was not sufficient to show that consumers recognise the mark and associate it with the applicant's goods.
Similarly, in The London Taxi Corporation v. Frazer-Nash15 the Court of Appeal confirmed a first instance decision that a trademark for the shape the iconic London 'black cab' was invalid for lack distinctive character. In particular, while recognisable, the shape was not shown to have acted as a designation of trade origin.
iv Actionable threats
On 1 October 2017, the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 came into force, making amendments to the law prohibiting unjustified threats of infringement proceedings. The Act harmonises, across the different intellectual property rights the subject of a threats regime, what can and cannot be said without falling foul of the provisions restricting the making of unjustified threats.
The Patents Act was enacted in the course of the United Kingdom's accession to the European Patent Convention. Certain sections of the Patents Act are expressed as framed so as to have, as nearly as practicable, the same effects in the United Kingdom as the corresponding provisions of the EPC, the Community Patent Convention and the PCT.
An invention shall be considered to be new ('novel') if it does not form part of the state of the art. The state of the art comprises everything made available to the public anywhere in the world by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other way before the date of filing of the European patent application. Additionally, the content of earlier filed (but not yet published) patent applications (UK or EPC designating the United Kingdom) is considered as comprised in the state of the art. A patent (or application) lacks novelty (is 'anticipated') if the prior art provides an 'enabling disclosure' of what is claimed.16
An invention shall be taken to involve an inventive step if it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, having regard to any matter that forms part of the state of the art (earlier filed but not yet published patent applications are not included in the state of the art for this purpose). In Conor v. Angiotech,17 the House of Lords (the predecessor to the UK Supreme Court) considered the issue of obviousness and approved the following statement of Kitchin J in Generics v. Lundbeck:18
In Hospira v. Genentech,19 the Court of Appeal noted that there is only one statutory question, namely whether the invention was obvious at the priority date. Whether the invention was obvious to try is merely one of many considerations that it may be appropriate for the Court to take into account in addressing the statutory question; it is not a substitute test for obviousness, and it must in any case be coupled with a reasonable or fair prospect of success.
An invention shall be taken to be capable of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture. The notion of industry is construed broadly.20
The specification must disclose the invention clearly and completely enough for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art. It must be sufficient to allow the invention to be performed over the whole scope of the claim and without undue burden.21
Previously, for inventions residing in a second or subsequent use of a known medicament, claims in 'Swiss form' were permissible (i.e., 'use of X in the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of Y') but following the decision of the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal in G2/08 (Abbott Respiratory/dosage regimes)22 applicants may no longer claim second medical use inventions in the Swiss format. The changes introduced in 2010 made no change to practice regarding existing Swiss form claims already in force.
Patents with claims in Swiss form do not prevent (under the double patenting exclusion) the grant of a related application with claims in purpose-limited product format because the subject matter of such claims is considered different.23 For the same reason, it is not possible to amend granted Swiss form patent claims to purpose-limited product format.
Whether or not a (non-microbiological) process for the production of animals or plants is 'essentially biological' and therefore excluded from patentability has to be judged on the basis of the essence of the invention taking account the totality of the human intervention and its impact on the result achieved.25
In Oliver Brüstle v. Greenpeace27 the CJEU ruled that a 'human embryo was: any human ovum after fertilisation; any non-fertilised human ovum into which the cell nucleus from a mature human cell has been transplanted; and any non-fertilised human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis'. The exclusion covered the use of human embryos for purposes of scientific research; only use for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes that are applied to the human embryo and are useful to it being patentable. Further, patentability was excluded where the subject matter involved the prior destruction of human embryos or their use as base material.
Subsequently, in International Stem Cell Corporation v. Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks,28 the CJEU ruled that an unfertilised human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis does not constitute a 'human embryo', within the meaning of that provision, if, in the light of current scientific knowledge, it does not, in itself, have the inherent capacity of developing into a human being.
If and when the UPC Agreement and associated EU Regulations come into force, owners of European patents designating Member States of the EU participating in the UPC system will (subject to opting-out) be able to enforce those European patents (but not national patents) in the UPC. New unitary patents will also be enforceable in the UPC. At the time of writing, the UPC is expected to have a central division (with its seat in Paris, and sections in London and Munich), local divisions in some Member States, and one or more regional divisions covering more than one Member State (e.g., a 'Nordic-Baltic' regional division for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden). Choice of venue will depend on relevant provisions of the UPC Agreement and the UPC's Rules of Procedure. Decisions in relation to European patents that are not 'opted-out' and all unitary patents will have effect across the Member States concerned in each case. At the time of writing, if the UPC Agreement enters into force, at the minimum the following contracting states will be within the new system: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and (depending on arrangements in respect of Brexit) the UK. For the term of the transition period (at least the first seven years), the current jurisdiction of the national courts of the participating countries in respect of European patents will continue in parallel. The remainder of this Section is concerned with the existing system, not the UPC.
However in Actavis v. Eli Lilly,34 Lilly was found to have conceded jurisdiction, in the course of pre-action correspondence, such that the Patents Court considered the claim to have been properly commenced and the Court to have jurisdiction to award a declaration of non-infringement covering designations of a European patent for several other EU Member States. In Eli Lilly v. Genentech,35 the Civil Procedure Rules enabled Lilly to commence proceedings for declarations of non-infringement in respect of a UK designation of a European patent and several non-UK designations of the same patent by service on Genentech, Inc, in the United States. (Lilly also challenged the validity of the UK designation of Genentech's European patent, but not the non-UK designations.) In contrast, in Parainan Pearl Shipping v. Kristian Gerhard Jebsen Skipsrederei,36 Parainan's attempt to commence proceedings against the Norwegian owners of several designations of a European patent for relief including declarations of non-infringement, by the employment of a different mechanism in the Civil Procedure Rules, was unsuccessful. This remains a developing area of the law.
Discovery may be available in the course of litigation. (In unusual circumstances it may be available from a non-party.) A party discloses a document by stating that it exists. The party to whom disclosure is made is then entitled to inspect the document, except where it is no longer in the disclosing party's control or where the disclosing party has a right or duty to withhold inspection of it, for example because it is privileged. Confidentiality does not confer a right to withhold inspection, but the court may order disclosure of confidential documents on appropriate terms, for example to specified members of a 'confidentiality club'. The existence of a confidentiality club will reduce the likelihood that redaction of documents will be allowed.37
Increasingly, disclosure requirements are tailored on a case-by-case basis. In patent cases, provision of a product or process description by the alleged infringer usually enables standard disclosure to be dispensed with in relation to infringement. In relation to validity, disclosure is usually constrained to a term two years either side of the earliest claimed priority date. In the context of quantum (even before litigation commences) licence agreements concluded by one party (or prospective party) with a third party may be disclosable.38 In every case, it is the court that orders the scope of disclosure, and there is no longer a prima facie rule of standard disclosure.39
Expert evidence is generally required to assist the court in adopting the mantle of the person skilled in the art and to determine the scope of the common general knowledge. Parties tend to retain their own expert, although they may be ordered to agree upon a single expert. Expert witnesses owe a duty to the court, which overrides any duty they have to the party and its team of legal advisers, and bear a personal responsibility for their evidence.40 Expert evidence in chief is provided by way of a report, with opportunity to respond in writing to the report submitted by the other expert. Oral testimony is usually limited to cross-examination and re-examination. Cross-examination is considered by the courts to be an important tool by which expert evidence that is submitted to the court may be scrutinised.41 'Hot-tubbing' (the hearing of evidence from the experts of opposing parties concurrently) may be employed.42
In Actavis v. Eli Lilly,45 the UK Supreme Court ruled that the assessment of infringement is a two-stage process asking first whether the variant infringes any of the claims of the patent as a matter of normal interpretation and, if not, then second, whether the variant nonetheless infringes because it varies from the invention in a way or ways that is or are immaterial. The Supreme Court also provided guidance on when an equivalent might infringe, which has since been interpreted by the Court of Appeal in Icescape v. Ice-World.46
It is a contributory infringement of a patent to supply or offer to supply in the United Kingdom a person other than a licensee or other person entitled to work the invention with any of the means, relating to an essential element of the invention, for putting the invention into effect. In order to infringe in this way the alleged infringer must know, or it must be obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances, that the means he or she has supplied are suitable for putting, and are intended to put, the invention into effect in the United Kingdom.47
Further, a defendant will be liable as a joint tortfeasor if he or she has assisted in the commission of the tort by another person pursuant to a common design with that person to do an act that is, or turns out to be, tortious.48
The time to trial has tended to depend upon the conduct of the parties, the complexity of the case and the diary of the court. The Patents Court intends to list trials within 12 months of commencement of the action, and parties are expected to start to consider potential trial dates as soon as reasonably practicable, which may be very soon after the proceedings are commenced.49 Where considered appropriate by the court, a trial can take place considerably sooner than this, for example, in Napp v. Dr Reddy's50 the trial hearing took place approximately four months after the litigation commenced, the full substantive judgment was handed down shortly afterwards and the second instance decision was given within six months of the litigation commencing.
Following a finding of patent infringement (and validity), the court will usually award a 'final' injunction, although the position in relation to standard essential patents and second medical use patents is more complex and the outcome, in each case, likely to be more dependent upon the relevant facts.
Injunctive relief may be available at an interim stage where the patentee shows an arguable case of infringement and that a later monetary remedy would not adequately compensate the patentee for the harm caused by the ongoing (alleged) infringement. The court considers the 'balance of harm' likely to be suffered by the respective parties before deciding whether to award interim relief and if so the terms of the order. For non-final injunctions, the patentee is usually required to provide a cross-undertaking as to damages. According to the CJEU's decision in Solvay v. Honeywell,51 the UK courts may be able to grant interim injunctions on a pan-European basis.
Injunctions are usually prohibitory in nature although mandatory injunctions are possible. In keeping with the developing jurisprudence of the CJEU in respect of the IP Enforcement Directive, the proportionality and effectiveness of the relief are relevant factors in the court's assessment as to whether to grant the relief sought.
Since the decision of the High Court in Twentieth Century Fox v. BT,52 website blocking orders have been granted to music and film copyright owners to impede access to websites that are predominantly used to share copyright infringing content. In 2014, in Cartier v. B Sky B,53 similar relief was awarded with respect to websites that advertise and sell trademark-infringing products. The High Court decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in July 201654 and should now be considered settled law, although aspects of the Court of Appeal judgment (principally as to who should bear the costs of implementing the blocking orders) have been appealed to the Supreme Court (at the time of writing, the judgment is awaited).
In March 2017, in The Football Association Premier League v. BT,55 the High Court permitted a new form of blocking order, against particular ISP addresses, directed at inhibiting unauthorised live streaming of broadcast events (in this case, of Premier League football matches).
Damages compensate for loss and are intended to restore the patentee to the position they would have been in had no wrong been done to him or her. They may be calculated according to the damage caused to the patentee's profits by the infringement or in accordance with a 'reasonable royalty'. In an account of profits, the profits made by the infringer from the infringement of the patent are awarded to the patentee. The court may order the infringer to give some financial disclosure, so that the patentee may make an informed decision as to which remedy to pursue (not both). Neither remedy will be available against an 'innocent' infringer, although few infringers are found to be 'innocent'.
The court can order declarations. Declarations can be, for example: of validity or contested validity, which can impact the award of legal costs in future challenges; of infringement or non-infringement; of essentiality to a technical standard;56 and that aspects of a party's product or process were obvious at a relevant date, which can create a squeeze between infringement and validity and may be of assistance to parties in 'clearing the way' in some circumstances.57
Decisions of the Comptroller General of Patents and interim decisions of the IPEC may be appealed to the Patents Court. Decisions of the Patents Court and final decisions of the IPEC may be appealed to the Court of Appeal. Decisions of the Court of Appeal relating to important issues of legal principle may be appealed to the Supreme Court. Experienced specialist patents judges Floyd LJ and Lord Kitchin sit in the Court of Appeal and UK Supreme Court, respectively.
In June 2016, the UK population voted in a referendum to leave the European Union. At the time of writing, it is unclear when Brexit will occur or what the legal structure will be framing the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union after Brexit. Following Brexit, the present systems of protection and enforcement in respect of intellectual property rights of national (UK) scope would broadly speaking remain in their current form. This is the case for GB patents and UK designations of European patents, supplementary protection certificates, UK trademarks, UK registered and unregistered designs, copyright and neighbouring rights, and trade secrets. For EU-wide rights obtained or arising under an EU regime, following Brexit (or the expiry of any agreed transition period) the EU would no longer consider the right to cover the UK or the UK to be within the EU-wide regime. This would apply to EU trademarks, Community registered designs and unregistered Community design rights. However, national legislation would mitigate the effects of this in the UK. Essentially, the UK would extract (automatically and without a fee) from each EU-wide right a UK right of the same scope that could be enforced in the UK courts as a national right. A new 'supplementary unregistered design right' would be created replicating, for the UK, the scope of protection presently arising under the unregistered Community designs regime. The UK would continue to recognise the EEA regional exhaustion regime, at least in the short term. However from the perspective of the countries remaining in the EEA, the UK would be outside their regional exhaustion regime.
The UPC Agreement was signed by 25 participating Member States of the EU in 2013, including the United Kingdom.
With the implementation of the UPC Agreement and associated legislation, European patents that are not 'opted-out' of the UPC system, and granted unitary patents, will fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC. Where a claim for infringement or validity is brought in the UPC, the Court's decision will cover the Member States of all designations of the European patent (or unitary patent) that fall within the court's remit (i.e., the EP designations of all participating Member States that have ratified the agreement at the relevant time). Applicants to the EPO for patent protection will be able to seek unitary protection (a unitary patent) covering those EU Member States that have deposited an instrument of ratification or accession at the date of grant of the European patent.
However, a legal challenge in the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany, and the uncertainties presented by Brexit, mean that at the time of writing it is not clear when the new system will become operational.
The EU legislature has enacted the reform of copyright law across the European Union. The changes, which will come into force in 2021, are intended to improve cross-border accessibility to copyright content and related services, and enhance the portability of online content that would allow users to transport content from one device to another without the risk of infringement.
5 Unwired Planet v. Huawei [2018] EWCA Civ 2344.
6 [2017] EWCA Civ 1671.
7 Actavis v. ICOS [2019] UKSC 15.
9 Arrow Generics Ltd v. Merck & Co Inc [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat).
10 [2018] EWHC 3414 (Pat).
11 Exxon (T 409/91); AgrEvo (T939/92).
12 Warner-Lambert v. Generics [2018] UKSC 56.
13 Eli Lilly v. Genentech [2019] EWHC 387 (Pat).
14 [2017] EWCA Civ 358.
15 [2017] EWCA Civ 1729.
16 Synthon BV v. SmithKline Beecham plc [2005] UKHL 59.
17 [2008] UKHL 49, [2008] RPC 28.
18 [2007] RPC 32.
19 [2016] EWCA Civ 780.
20 Eli Lilly v. Human Genome Sciences [2008] EWHC 1903 (Pat).
21 Eli Lilly v. Human Genome Sciences [2012] EWCA Civ 1185.
22 G2/08 [2010] 10 OJEPO 456 and UKIPO Practice Notice 26 May 2010.
23 T 1780/12.
25 UKIPO's Manual of Patent Practice, 76A.03.
26 UKIPO's Manual of Patent Practice, 76A.06, G 2/07, G 1/98.
29 UKIPO's Manual of Patent Practice, 1.
30 Symbian Ltd's Application [2009] RPC 1.
33 At the time of writing, Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters; Lugano Convention 2005; Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.
37 Aqua v. Fiserv [2017] EWHC 1627 (Ch).
38 Big Bus Company v. Ticketogo [2015] EWHC 1094 (Pat); Smart Reamer Drilling Systems v. NOV Downhole Eurasia [2018] EWHC 1265 (IPEC)
39 Positec v. Husqvarna [2016] EWHC 1061 (Pat); and from 1 January 2019 the disclosure pilot for the Business and Property Courts.
45 2017] UKSC 46.
46 [2018] EWCA Civ 2219.
47 Section 60(2) of the Patents Act 1977.
48 Sea Shepherd v. Fish & Fish [2015] UKSC 10.
49 Celltrion v. Biogen [2016] EWHC 188 (Pat).
50 Napp v. Dr Reddy's & Sandoz [2016] EWCA Civ 1053; [2016] EWHC 1517 (Pat).
51 Case C-616/10, 12 July 2012.
52 [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch).
55 [2017] EWHC 480 (Ch).
56 Nokia v. Interdigital [2007] EWHC 3077 (Pat).
57 Fujifilm v. Abbvie [2017] EWHC 395 (Pat).