Supreme Court poised to hear another landmark patent case – with an ever increasing number of interveners
Hot on the heels of its ground breaking decision last summer in Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly & Co  UKSC 48, which introduced a doctrine of equivalents into English law, the Supreme Court is poised to hear another very significant patent case, Warner-Lambert v Actavis, this month, as we report in this blog.
Last week, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in interlocutory proceedings concerning s.92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 ("TMA") in R v M, C and T  UKSC 58. The case concerns the criminal offence of unauthorised use of trade marks. The Supreme Court was clear that it is unlawful to put grey market goods on the market, just as it is for counterfeit goods.
Eli Lilly and Actavis have been battling over the patent on Lilly's Alimta product since 2012. Fieldfisher went to the UK Supreme Court from 4 - 6 April 2017 to hear the latest round of the proceedings.
Trunki case now closed as Supreme Court (regretfully) rules there is no infringement by rival ride-on…
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Community Registered Design (CRD) for the popular children's ride on Trunki suitcase has not been infringed by its discount rival ride-on Kiddee Case. In a nutshell, the Supreme Court Lords unanimously agreed with the Court of Appeal that the Kiddee Case created a different overall impression to that of the Trunki – the overall impression of the CRD was a horned animal which was significantly different to the impression created by the Kiddee Case which was an insect with antennae or an animal with ears. Lord Neuberger sympathised with Trunki creator Robert Law, of Dragon's Den fame, and commended him for his clever and original idea, but went on to say that design rights exist to protect designs and not ideas. It appears to be the end of the road now for Trunki as Robert Law was also refused his request for a referral to the CJEU, the highest European Court.