For the half-year to 30 June 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Alberto Bellan, Darren Meale and Nadia Zegze.

Two of our regular Kats are currently on blogging sabbaticals. They are David Brophy and Catherine Lee.

Tuesday, 8 August 2006

GOOD NEWS FOR FINNISH TREES


Good news for Finnish trees

Above: trees anxiously awaiting to discover whether they are going
to be pulped for paper consumed in Ultraframe judgments

A two-man Court of Appeal for England and Wales (Lord Justice Jacob and Lord Justice Waller) today refused permission to appeal in all five rulings of Mr Justice Lewison in Ultraframe v Fielding and others. This was once upon a time an intellectual property dispute, but it has been going on for so long, becoming increasingly complex, that the IPKat - who thinks it was something to do with an IP licence - doubts that even most IP enthusiasts can remember what it was all about in the first place. To set the scene, Jacob LJ says:
"These are five applications for permission to appeal. They all concern judgments of Lewison J given in a dispute conducted by both sides as if it were a State trial. He heard and determined the main dispute. It took over 90 hearing days and his judgment runs to 1929 paragraphs covering 487 pages. He also heard and determined related disputes and those consequential on his main judgment".
Presumably the applicants for leave to appeal aren't going to take this lying down. They must be sharpening their pencils in readiness to petition the House of Lords. The IPKat can just imagine how many trees must be readied for pulping if even more pages of law result from this litigation. Merpel says, we should go over to a more French style of judgment: cut out all that lengthy reasoning and go straight from the arguments to the ruling. There might be more appeals, but it would certainly provide a lot less for busy lawyers to read ...

Another complicated UK dispute over an IP licence here
Another dispute that should never have been allowed to boil over here
Other litigation involving Ultraframe here, here, here, here and here

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

One cannot petition the House of Lords if one has had permission to appeal refused by the Court of Appeal - so that's the end of the road for Ultraframe on the substantive points.

Ultraframe did get permission to appeal on costs from the Court of Appeal - and since it sounds like the case must now be about lawyers' costs, that is probably quite a large victory for them.

Jeremy said...

You're quite right about the House of Lords point. I can't think what I was - or more to the point, wasn't - thinking about when I wrote that. Sorry!

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

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