Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
Last month, in Grimme v Scott, the Court of Appeal considered the test for ‘contributory infringement’ of a patent.
Their interpretation was that someone can infringe simply by supplying “means essential” for using a patented invention if, when supplying, they know (or it is obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances), that ultimate users will intend to put the invention into effect.
The decision was underlined this week in KCI Licensing v Smith & Nephew. The original judge had found that on the facts it would have been obvious that end users of Smith & Nephew’s wound drainage device might combine it with a clamp, infringing KCI’s patent. The Court of Appeal therefore held that by supplying the device, Smith & Nephew had themselves infringed.
This interpretation of the statute is likely to catch many more ‘indirect’ infringers – companies should be particularly careful when advertising products that they don’t suggest potentially infringing modifications.
The Hiscox Cyber Readiness report, a review of 3300 organisations, will be a stark warning for CEO’s of SME’s in the UK and in Europe.
View blog
How secure is your fitness tracker? (Not to mention your smartwatch, sleep tracker, smart shoe insoles and wearable Bluetooth keyboard). It’s something that many of us give little thought to, but perhaps we should be more concerned.
The Supreme Court handed down judgment in the long-running Cartier dispute of 13 June 2018, overruling the Court of Appeal
The Court of Justice of the European Union has today given its judgment in relation to a key issue in one of the most hotly debated trade mark disputes in recent times.
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up