Birmingham
mark.daniels@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)121 237 3993
Mark has over 20 years’ experience in intellectual property dispute resolution across all IP rights. He leads Browne Jacobson’s patents and reputation management practices. He is ranked as an IP Star for Trade Marks and Patents (Managing Intellectual Property), and is listed as a leading individual in World Trade Mark Review 1000 and IAM Patents 1000.
Mark regularly advises and represents clients in resolving disputes on the validity and infringement of patents. He has experience of obtaining and defending applications for interim injunctions and has conducted high profile patent disputes in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and Intellectual Property Office, with sector experience in the fields of electronics, medical devices, software, telecommunications and hi-tech engineering.
His brands practice includes particular experience in the automotive and retail sectors. Mark led London Electric Vehicle Company (previously The London Taxi Corporation) in the cutting edge 3-D shape trade mark and passing off litigation. He leads trade mark enforcement programmes including in the online space.
Mark has a diploma in Intellectual Property Law and Practice from Bristol University and is a member of Society for Computers and Law and an associate member of INTA, IET and CIPA. He regularly writes for a number of IP journals including CITMA Review, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice and EIPR. He is an expert panelist to LexisPSL IP.
Developing and implementing strategy concerning safeguarding an Academy’s reputation in BBC Panorama programme.
Defence of defamation High Court proceedings.
Leading successful trade mark Opposition against global brand.
Conducting trade mark and passing off litigation, including UK and EU Intellectual Property cancellation actions and enforcement.
"I cannot thank them enough for their fantastic guidance and support through a truly traumatic time. Without their professional, speedy responses, my school could have had its reputation permanently damaged."
"We value our intellectual property highly. The single team at Browne Jacobson and Barker Brettell, led by Mark and Louis, ensures that the management and enforcement of our rights is joined up and frankly easier to manage."
In the ongoing complex litigation between Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Apple Inc., the Court of Appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 1411) has upheld the High Court’s findings that implementers of standard-essential patents (SEPs) cannot refuse to accept a FRAND license and continue activities in the meantime which constitute infringement: that party must commit to accept a court-determined license if it wishes to avoid an injunction.
National law firm Browne Jacobson has been ranked again for both its patent litigation and transactional work in the 2022 edition of IAM Patent 1000, the independent guide to the world’s leading patent law firms and practitioners.
Browne Jacobson’s national IP lawyers are celebrating after being ranked in the 2022 World Trademark Review (WTR) 1000 - the independent guide which recognises leading trade mark experts across key jurisdictions around the globe.
In July this year, four years to the month after its introduction into UK law in the Supreme Court’s seminal judgment in Actavis v Eli Lilly, the court handed down its latest decision applying the ‘doctrine of equivalents’.
The Court of Appeal has held that an AI machine cannot be named as the ‘inventor’ of a patent, because it is not a ‘natural person’, and is therefore also incapable of transferring the right in that patent to a person.
Reaction: Intellectual Property Enterprise Court judgment finds patent infringement based solely on equivalents
Innovation and creativity is driven by your people. How do you as a business encourage innovation, capture the relevant IP assets and reward your innovators?
In this webinar recording, our experts Mark Daniels and Helen Simm provide you with the key information you need to identify issues relating to the disclosing of documents relevant to litigation, which may have to be disclosed if they are not privileged.
