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
GOOD NEWS FOR FINNISH TREES GOOD NEWS FOR FINNISH TREES Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 Rating: 5


  1. 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.

  2. 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!


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.