Calling All Sole Practitioners; Tamglass Non Barred From Claiming Damages; Delay Non Prejudicial

here.


Patent victor doesn't autumn into non-registration trap

has exactly works life a farther ruling inwards Tamglass Ltd OY v Luoyang Glass Technology Co Ltd, which he blogged a brief banking concern annotation on 27 January. The ruling emanates from yesterday's hearing earlier Mr Justice Isle of Mann inwards the Patents Court in addition to it is available on Butterworth's All England Direct subscription service in addition to besides on Lawtel.

To summarise: on 27 Jan the courtroom allowed Tamglass's claim against Luoyang after belongings that its patent was valid against a somewhat spurious challenge. After a dispute every bit to the course of report of the subsequent fiscal order, Novaglaze - who kept in addition to used the infringing machine - contended that Tamglass was non entitled to fiscal relief inwards honor of infringing acts committed earlier it became the possessor of the patent, since the assignment to Tamglass should conduct maintain been registered nether s.33 of the Patents Act 1977 but wasn't. Accordingly, yesteryear virtue of s.68 of the same Act, no infringement damages could locomote claimed for acts done earlier the engagement of registration of the transaction.

What had genuinely happened was that a company, Kyro Corporation, had instruct the proprietor of the patent every bit a number of a demerger of a Finnish company, Kyro Oyj Abp. Upon the demerger the assets of Kyro Oyj Abp were owned yesteryear Kyro Corporation yesteryear functioning of the Finnish constabulary of universal succession. Tamglass afterwards became the proprietor every bit a number of an assignment that carried amongst it the correct to sue for yesteryear infringements. The number was whether Kyro Corporation had itself instruct the proprietor of the patent "by virtue of a transaction, musical instrument or lawsuit to which department 33 applies" nether s.68 of the Act. Both defendants argued that, since the transfer of the patent to Kyro Corporation should conduct maintain been registered nether s.33 but wasn't, no damages were recoverable inwards honor of infringements taking house betwixt the demerger in addition to the engagement Tamglass acquired the patent. Tamglass submitted that the demerger was a transfer yesteryear functioning of constabulary nether s.30(3), which was non a transaction, musical instrument or lawsuit specified inwards s.33(3). Accordingly at that spot was no reason for depriving it of damages nether s.68.

Mann J dismissed this declaration every bit existence baseless. In his thought the transfer of the patent did non autumn inside the registration provisions. Since it didn't involve registration nether s.33, failure to register didn't bar the recovery of damages nether s.68.

wonders whether whatever patent damages claims conduct maintain but non been brought inwards the yesteryear on the erroneous supposition that a failure to register a transaction automatically meant the choke of an entitlement to obtain damages.


Tell it to the Marines ... but don't wake them up

Another case, besides noted on the All England Direct service, is Marine Rescue Technologies Ltd in addition to others v Burchill in addition to another, a Chancery Division conclusion of Mr Justice Warren, besides of yesterday's date.

In infringement/passing off proceedings issued yesteryear Marin Rescue Technology inwards September 2001 next a dispute concerning the skillful championship of certainly patents in addition to pattern rights, Burchill applied to smasher out Marine's claim. Burchill relied on Civil Procedure Rules 3.1, 3.4 in addition to the inherent jurisdiction of the court, citing 4 kind instances of inordinate delay.

Warren J dismissed the application. In this case, he said, the delays - whether taken individually or cumulatively - could non locomote viewed every bit disgraceful: at each phase it was opened upwards to Burchill to prompt Marine, but they did non exercise so. Nor had whatever prejudice to their seat been caused yesteryear the delays.

can't assist wondering most this. Four in addition to a one-half years into a dispute, its resolution doesn't appear to conduct maintain got real far. What most some rigorous illustration administration to force it on its way? Merpel adds, I promise the claimants' rescue applied scientific discipline works to a greater extent than rapidly than the legal organisation ...

"Slow, slow ... quick, quick, slow!"