Included in this issue: Claims of bad faith and breach of exclusivity: not cricket?; Developing a case for additional damages for copyright infringement; Google Ads – it's all in the small print and more...
Claims of bad faith and breach of exclusivity: not cricket?
- Licensee of sports broadcast rights fails to pay sums due under the rights agreement
- Licensee argues breach of exclusivity by rights owner
- Can a licensor commence discussions with a new licensee without breaching exclusivity?
For further details click here
Developing a case for additional damages for copyright infringement
- Claim of copyright infringement of architects' drawings
- Claimant seeks additional damages for "flagrancy" of the breach
- To what extent is the Defendant's knowledge relevant?
For further details click here
"Outstanding" contribution to the case law on employee inventions
- Claim for compensation by an employed inventor of patented technology
- How to assess compensation when an employer has received an "outstanding" benefit from the invention?
- Guidance from the Court of Appeal on how to assess the benefit to an employer in the case of very large corporations
For further details click here
Accusations of trade mark infringement: a graphic example
- Trade mark dispute between two manufacturers of computer parts
- Did a letter from one side's lawyers amount to a groundless threat of infringement proceedings in the UK?
- High Court gives guidance on how to assess a letter which threatens proceedings, where there is an international dimension
For further details click here
Court of Appeal refuses to impose a special test for obviousness for therapeutic use patent cases
- Court of Appeal upholds decision of High Court that patent owned by Genentech is invalid for obviousness
- Court rejects argument that where a claim relates to a drug combination to achieve a claimed effect, there must be a very high expectation of success in order for the invention to be "obvious to try"
- The test for obviousness remains flexible, multifactorial and case-specific
For further details click here
Google Ads – it's all in the small print
- Argos Limited claims for trade mark infringement against an unrelated US business with the same name
- Held that the defendant's use of ARGOS in the domain name argos.com and via Google Ads did not amount to trade market infringement
