The team is joined by GuestKats Mirko Brüß, Rosie Burbidge, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopolou, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy
InternKats: Rose Hughes, Ieva Giedrimaite, and Cecilia Sbrolli
SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Hayleigh Bosher (Book Review Editor), and Tian Lu (Asia Correspondent).

Sunday, 29 January 2006


Judge sees through transparent defence in glass patent case

Another scoop for the Butterworths' All England Direct subscription-only service is a note on Tamglass Ltd OY v Luoyang Glass Technology Co Ltd and another [2006] EWHC 65 (Ch), a Patent Court decision of Mr Justice Mann on Friday 27 January 2006.

The dispute in question revolved round a patent for a machine that incorporated the process of heating, bending and tempering glass into a single almost continuous process. Luoyang was the manufacturer of a machine which, Tamglass said, infringed its patent. A second defendant allegedly infringed the patent by keeping and using a machine supplied by Luoyang. Luoyang agreed that its machine fell firmly within the patent's claim but, citing several instances of what it maintained was relevant prior art, counterclaimed for revocation on the usual grounds (lack of novelty; no inventive step). The second defendant indicated that it was content to be bound by the court’s decision and played no part in the trial.

Below: Luoyang is famous for nobler crafts than patent infringement

Mann J gave judgment for Tamglass. On the evidence, the alleged prior patents or applications submitted in support of Luoyang's counterclaim neither anticipated the patent nor rendered it obvious the inventions claimed in the patent.

The IPKat suspects that Luoyang was just making token resistance since, while Tamglass took the trouble to instruct specialist counsel, Luoyang simply appeared through a company representative. Merpel says, it's not really much of a scoop, is it? When the full transcript of the judgment becomes available, it'll probably have little or no law in it all like, like most cases that haven't been seriously contested in court.

IP blogs from Poland

The IPKat has just been introduced to an intellectual property weblog from Poland, Poland IP Law Resources, by lawyer Dariusz (Darek) Czuchaj. There's not much content on it right now, but Darek will kindly oblige if there's enough interest in it. So, if you want news and views from Poland, in English, email Darek here and tell him. It contains a link to Tomasz Rychlicki's, which is a fairly busy English language news source containing links to developments in almost every country in the world - including Poland.

The IPKat is pleased to see IP blogging spread and hopes that these early efforts will lead to greater awareness of IP law and practice - both its good points and its bad side - in Eastern Europe.

What a performance!

The IPKat is informed that the Performances (Moral Rights etc) Regulations 2006 (2006 No.18) were laid before the UK Parliament on 11 January 2006. In the absence of anyone taking notice of them and violently objecting, the new Regs become law on 1 February 2006 (i.e. this coming Wednesday).

Amending the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 once again, the Regulations create two new moral rights for performers of "qualified performances". These are (i) the right to be designated as the performer and (ii) the right to object to derogatory treatment of one's performance. Hmm, thinks the IPKat. It will only end in tears ... unless (adds Merpel) the courts can be persuaded to grant damages at a level that will leave the successful performer with anything other than a bruised pocket even when he succeeds.

No comments:

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':