header-logo header-logo

19 September 2014
Issue: 7622 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Patent—Infringement

William Mark Corporation v Gift House International Ltd [2014] EWHC 2845 (IPEC), [2014] All ER (D) 127 (Aug)

The first claimant owned two UK patents for an invention entitled “flying shark” and the second claimant was the exclusive licensee of the first claimant in respect of both patents. The defendant devised and imported toys for sale in the UK, in particular, flying fish known as “mega fliers”. The claimants brought proceedings against the defendant alleging patent infringement. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that both patents had been infringed and ruled on the validity of the claims within each patent.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll