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?
A person infringes a patent for a particular product if he ‘makes’ the product without the consent of the patentee. In Schutz v Werit the relevant ‘making’ involved replacing an old or damaged component vitally important to the function of the patent but not the subject of the patent itself.
At first instance Floyd J held there was no infringement but the Court of Appeal disagreed because once the relevant component (a bottle) was removed, there was little left of the patented invention so what was left enabled a new product to be made.
The Supreme Court gave guidance on the ‘proper approach to the meaning of makes’ and, after identifying eight different approaches to the meaning and decisions in the German courts, decided neither of the courts below had used the correct approach. It concluded that replacing the bottle did not amount to an infringing act of manufacture.
Anyone now considering the market for reconditioned products should carefully consider this decision.
As has been widely reported this week, some 3,000 UK workers are taking part in a six month trial to assess the viability of a four-day working week without any reduction in their normal pay.
View blog
In Nissan v Passi, the High Court recently considered the issue of an employee retaining confidential documents belonging to his former employer in the context of the employer’s application for an injunction seeking the return of such documents from the employee.
The UK government is considering extending this power to depart from retained EU case law to additional lower courts and tribunals, namely the Court of Appeal in England and Wales and the High Court of Justice in England and Wales and their equivalents.
Lord Justice Arnold has applied the guidance of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to the evidence before him, in the long standing trade mark dispute between Sky and Skykick.
Specialist IP Counsel
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up