header-logo header-logo

Practice

27 February 2015
Issue: 7642 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Vringo Infrastructure Inc v ZTE (UK) Ltd [2015] EWHC 214 (Pat), [2015] All ER (D) 187 (Feb)

In earlier proceedings, judgment was handed down in respect of a patent concerning relocation of a protocol termination point in a mobile phone system (the patent), in which it was held that patent was valid and was essential to the relevant telecommunications standards. Prior to the order being sealed. The defendant company applied for permission to reopen the trial, to amend the pleadings to plead new prior art against the validity of the patent and to have a further trial about that new prior art. It sought an order suspending sealing of the order due to be made until the application was heard. The Patents Court, applying settled law, ruled that, in all the circumstances, the trial would not be re-opened. The order would be sealed and there would be no stay of patent trials fixed for June.

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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll