Posts Tagged ‘ip’

Cutting the cost of IP litigation

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

After several months preparation a report was published today which makes recommendations aimed at reducing costs of IP cases and speeding up the process of dispute resolution.

A constant criticism of litigation is that the costs involved in pursuing or defending a claim are disproportionate. The risk of having to pay the other side’s costs in the event of losing an action or even the unrecoverable costs of winning a claim are a barrier to using the courts for dispute resolution particularly for small and medium sized enterprises. It has been estimated that the average cost of taking a case to trial is in the region of £700k (although our experience is that we would not expect the average case to cost that much).

The new proposals contained in a report written by a serving Judge of the Court of Appeal and bearing his name (Jackson) include:

  • reforming the Patent County Court and introducing a cap on recoverable costs (£50,000 in patent cases, £25000 for all other IP cases);
  • introducing a fast track and small claims track for cases with low monetary value and clearer forms of pleadings

The proposals are welcome as if implemented they will enable us to give greater certainty regarding the exposure to costs of litigation. If such greater certainty is achieved will it mean greater confidence in the court system? What do you think?

Peter Ellis

Posted by Peter Ellis
0115 976 6267
pellis@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.15_1155]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Video Recordings Act 1984 is not currently enforceable in UK courts

Friday, December 18th, 2009

On 15 December 2009 the Government published the Video Recordings Bill which is designed to correct an astounding anomaly discovered this summer that means the Video Recordings Act 1984 is not currently enforceable in UK courts.

This “anomaly” arose owing to the Government’s failure in 1984 to notify the European Commission before the Act became law.

Above everything else, this clearly demonstrates how significantly UK sovereignty has been diluted as a result of integration within the European institutions.

Luckily, since this rather serious discrepancy has been revealed, retailers have taken the responsible approach by continuing to observe the age ratings system applied to films and video games on a voluntary basis.

Once the VRA 1984 has been brought into force, the Digital Economy Bill will amend the Act by introducing a new system of classification for boxed video games.

Sarah Fellows

Posted by Sarah Fellows
0115 976 6242
sfellows@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.15_1155]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Have a REAL Merry Christmas – Who wants a FAKE Christmas Present!!!

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

As we all run into the last week of the Christmas shopping frenzy and the inevitable sales, the combination of a climate where money is tight and the desire for a bargain could mean some of us end up paying a high price for fakes. The criminal underworld gear up for this period and millions of poor quality counterfeits will be hitting the UK market stalls and car boot sales.

Warnings from the UK IPO indicate that we all should be particularly aware of the following types of goods which may have all the external appearance of the genuine article:

  • mobile phones, and their accessories
  • ghd hair straighteners – can be electrically unsafe and potentially life-threatening
  • Nintendo DS Lite consoles – the charger could be dangerous
  • video games – often contain viruses
  • children’s toys and action figures, which may have loose parts or contain toxic materials
  • perfumes, cosmetics and personal care items
  • alcoholic drinks – high levels of methanol can be lethal
  • Christmas lights and batteries

A new campaign – www.realdealmarkets.co.uk- which is supported by the Trading Standards Institute, has been developed to help consumers choose markets and stalls that have been vetted by trading standards. The question is why – is the consumer really that naïve? It is not only the counterfeiters that should bear the blame for this burgeoning criminal industry, the average consumer knows that when he or she is getting a bargain that’s too good to be true then it probably is too good to be true. While consumers obviously need protection they also need to take more personal responsibility for contributing to one of the UK’s growing criminal industries, including restrictions on any remedies available to them.

Declan Cushley

Posted by Declan Cushley
0121 237 3991
dcushley@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.15_1155]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Get your opinions here!

Friday, November 27th, 2009

It isn’t only the lawyers at Browne Jacobson who offer opinions. At a recent seminar, I was reminded by the UK Intellectual Property Office that its opinion service is very much open for business.

The UK-IPO offers opinions on the infringement or validity of a patent. Whilst the opinions are non-binding, they can be valuable as a negotiation tool and can be instructive in assisting the decision as to whether to proceed with patent enforcement, or clearing the path for some particular technology. Plus, says the UK-IPO, they can be obtained within 3 months of a request and only cost £200. One word of warning though – the opinions are published documents and so sometimes circumstances can dictate that confidential opinions from legal advisers may be the more suitable route!

Since the service commenced, there have been just over 100 opinions given by the UK-IPO and the general view is that uptake on this service is on the increase – it’s certainly one of the options to consider when considering whether it’s you or a competitor who has exclusivity in relation to key innovation.

Mark Daniels

Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.15_1155]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

The end is nigh for the copycat?

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009

Pimms recently took on Pitchers, and now a few weeks later, Next take on Tesco’s. Next has filed claims alleging that the supermarket has copied up to five of its clothing lines and stolen two design motifs originally designed by Next.

Brand owners have always recognised the value that exists in their designs and their brand. They spend a considerable sum of money to try and protect the rights that they hold in this Intellectual Property (IP). However, over the years copycats have exploited the limited protection that the Courts have afforded brand owners.

Now, it looks like brand owners are ready to have another go at getting the Courts to recognise and protect their IP rights.

However, the Courts seem to be distinguishing “imitation” – i.e. so similar that the public may be confused as to who owns the brand – and “comparison” – where the product is so different that there is no real confusion just an opportunity for consumers to choose the brand they prefer.

Copycat – consumer choice or consumer exploitation?

Fiona Carter

Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.15_1155]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)