What the well-dressed IP valuation expert wears in court ... |
"I wonder if your memory can help me? A few years ago there was a case [probably but not necessarily from England and Wales] where the judge ruled against a party because their expert witness only used one methodology and approach to value an IP asset in question, when the other side followed the spirit of the standard and investigated with the the accepted methodologies".This Kat, who has only the vaguest of memories of such a case, wonders if any of this weblog's learned and knowledgeable readers can provide chapter and verse for this decision, or at least for a decision that lies pretty close to it.
The line-up (if only ...!) |
I see ICC. At the end of October, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) launches a new IP-related project called the “Positive Innovation Agenda” [great idea, says Merpel, even if the title is a wee bit, er, descriptive ...], the details of which may be highly relevant to our readers. Says the ICC:
Reality warning: this is how the ICC views positive innovation
The Positive Innovation Agenda project will seek to answer what role intellectual property plays in innovation and technology diffusion, as well as how technology is being developed and disseminated in different sectors and countries today. It will explore these ideas in five papers on:
- IP Management by innovative SMEs
- Innovation and knowledge exchange through global networks and partnerships
- The evolving geography of innovation
- IP in innovation for non-commercial purposes
- Diffusion channels for technology and know-how
The first paper Enhancing IP Management and Appropriation by Innovative SMEs will be launched with the project at the end of October.If you'd like further information, you can watch a short video outlining the project here, read about it online here, or email Project Director Daphne Yong-d'Herve at dye@iccwbo.org for further information. To stay involved and up-to-date with future paper launches follow the ICC's initiative on Twitter @ICCWBO_ORG deploying the hashtag #ICCIP
All are welcome; no-one need feel out of plaice ... |
Re the Expert evidence and IP valuation question: I think it's the Interflora case. Not sure though. Search "interflora" on this blog.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the item on the ICC: whilst the IP ideas are laudable, the innovation and tech diffusion ideas might be more needed. In my interaction with early stage companies I've come to believe that they need to think much more about the marketplace they'll be selling to, and whether they will be able to displace existing technologies (technology overshooting etc).
ReplyDeleteHOLBORN BARS is indeed a lovely venue - perhaps more famous as the Prudential Building - but can it keep being HOLBORN if this trademark applicant tries to monopolise the name of our street.
ReplyDeleteWould anyone of these provide a stepping off point?
ReplyDeleteExperience Hendrix LLC v Times Newspapers Ltd [2010]EWHC 1986 (Ch)
Gerber Garment Technology Inc. v Lectra Systems Ltd. and Anr [1995] RPC 383 (partially reversed at appeal in 1997 [1997] RPC 443)
Coflexip SA v Stolt Offshore Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 296
esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 842
Fanmailuk.com v Cooper [2011] EWHC 902 (Ch)
Jeremy
ReplyDeleteThe reference to plaice is deprecated - it is a bitty fish with no real flavour (unless you pour something creamy over it). It fries well and is good with chips though.
Couldn't you say that it would be hunky Dory or say something about floundering?
Ashley