In-House Counsel Masterclass: IP & Technology LawSociete Des Produits Nestlé v Cadbury UK Ltd...
Transcript of In-House Counsel Masterclass: IP & Technology LawSociete Des Produits Nestlé v Cadbury UK Ltd...
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
Tuesday 1 May 2018
In-House Counsel Masterclass:
IP & Technology Law
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
Richard Woulfe, Partner, Mason Hayes & Curran
Welcome
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
Gerard Kelly, Partner & Head of IP, Mason Hayes &
Curran
Recent IP Case Law
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Trade Marks
• Copyright
• Designs
• Patents
Key Developments and Trends
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
Trade Marks
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• UK Court of Appeal
• Nestlé„s 3D shape mark for the four-fingered Kit-Kat product
• Not acquired sufficient distinctive character on its own
• Contrary decision of the General Court
Societe Des Produits Nestlé v Cadbury UK Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 358
Trade Marks
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Twin Peaks chocolate bar
• Counterclaimed Toblerone shape is no longer distinctive
• Review of mark based on principles in the KitKat proceedings
Mondelez v Poundland
Trade Marks
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• 2 applications:
• “The ratio of the colours is approximately 50%-50%”
• “The two colours will be applied in equal proportion and
juxtaposed to each other”
• Trade mark invalid. Result:
“allowed for the arrangement of those colours in numerous
different combinations”
Red Bull GmbH v EUIPO T-101/15 and T-102/15, 30 November 2017
Trade Marks
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• „NUTRIPLETE‟ vs „NUTRIPLEN‟
• Trade mark infringement
• Related proceedings against wholesalers and suppliers
• Account of profits denied based on conduct
• How do you quantify damages?
Nutrimedical B.V. & Anor v Nualtra Limited [2017] IEHC 253
Trade Marks
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Goodwill associated with solicitors name
• Reputation must be distinguished from goodwill
• Goodwill vested in the firm
• Revocation of „Bhayani Bracewell‟ registered trade mark on
grounds that it would mislead the public
Bhayani and another v Taylor Bracewell LLP [2016] EWHC 3360
Passing Off
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Court of Appeal overturned HC decision
• “erroneous interpretation” that all material and relevant
features of both products should be set out in the
comparative advertisement
• Preference of evidence of one expert not enough on its own
Aldi Stores (Ireland) Ltd & Anor -v- Dunnes Stores [2017] IECA 116
Comparative Advertising
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Leave to Appeal to SC granted
• Perceived injustice to the unsuccessful party does not mean
the matter is “in the interests of justice”
• Competition between retailers and the rules on such
conduct are issues of “general public importance”
Aldi Stores (Ireland) Ltd & Anor -v- Dunnes Stores [2017] IECA 116
Comparative Advertising
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
Copyright
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Injunction blocking access to servers
• „live‟ blocking order
Motion Picture Association v Virgin Media, Eircom, Three etc.
• Streaming films / tv shows
• blocking order
Football Association Premier League v BT [2017] EWHC 480 (Ch)
Copyright – TV Shows and Films
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Copyright ownership in the movie script for Florence Foster
Jenkins
• Minor editing changes and contribution does not amount to
joint ownership
• No evidence of common design
Nicholas Martin v Julia Kogan [2017] EWHC 2927
Copyright
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
Designs
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Territorial jurisdiction of a community design court extends
throughout the EU
• Where numerous infringements in numerous MS, the Court
must make an overall assessment to determine the place of
the initial act of infringement
C- 24/16 and C- 15/16 Nintendo Co. Ltd v BigBen Interactive GmbH
Designs
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
The relationship between defendants
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
Patents
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Cancer treatment pemetrexed
• Arnold J – no infringement direct or indirect
• Court of Appeal – indirect infringement
• Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal
• Introduction of Doctrine of Equivalents under UK Law
Actavis v Eli Lily [2017] UKSC 48
Patents
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Invalidity proceedings – Judgment of Barrett J
• Court of Appeal
• Application to Amend the Patent
• Whether leave required to amend a Statement of Opposition
• No leave required - even if leave was required it would be
granted
• Liberal jurisdiction
Boehringer v The Patents Acts [2018] IEHC 165
Patents
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Account of Profits in lieu of an injunction for future infringement
• Not covered in pleadings
• No unconscionable or improper conduct as allowed product
continue
GlaxoSmithKline v Wyeth [2017] EWHC 91 (Pat)
Patents
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Courts are remaining strict on what can be protected by trade
mark law as a “monopoly for all time”.
• Much anticipated decision of the Supreme Court on
comparative advertising regulations
• Further scope for patent infringement actions with the
introduction of the doctrine of equivalents
Some conclusions
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
Brian McElligott, Partner, Mason Hayes & Curran
Protection and Monetisation
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
IP Lifecycle
Identify
Evaluate
Protect Enforce
Monetise
Exit
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Protect = File + Prosecute Increasingly
complex
seek early advice on strategies
• Monetise = Commercialisation / Licensing
avoid common pitfalls
seek support at commercial negotiation stage
Key Messages
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Cancelled because found to
be:
• “Shape necessary to achieve
a technical result – rotation
of the movable elements of
the cube.”
Shapes – Very Challenging
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Registered
• The shape significantly
departs from the customs
and norms for chocolate
Shapes – Not all bad!
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Registered Community Design (RCD)
• Unregistered Community Design
• Product Packaging
• Unregistered Trade Mark (Passing Off)
• Copyright (limited scope)
Trends and Strategies
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Series marks
• Very useful in FMCG and retail multiple
representations can be covered in a single
filing
Ireland and UK (Not EU)
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Draft agreement – Title IV IP – Articles 50 -57
• Broadly positive from brand owners perspective
o take effect from end of transition period
o equivalent UK right with date of priority
o automatically and free of charge
Brexit! (Uncertainty)
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Geographical Indications to be protected by equivalent national
right
• IP representation – silent!
• Assess your territorial scope and file accordingly
Brexit! (Uncertainty)
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
Key Contractual Must Haves
• Scope – exclusive / sole / non-exclusive
- territory (EU – exhaustion of rights)
- clear and precise!
• Performance requirements exclusivity
• Clear royalty and payment terms
Monetise/ Commercialise
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Licensee‟s use of the trade mark to accrue to the benefit of the
licensor (beware)
• Provide an indemnity in favour of the licensor (multiple
licensees)
• Report promptly infringement or damaging use of trade mark to
licensor
• Specify conduct of proceedings for infringing use
• Sub-licensing and assignment
Monetise/ Commercialise
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Protect = File + Prosecute Increasingly
complex
seek early advice on strategies
• Monetise = Commercialisation / Licensing
avoid common pitfalls
seek support at commercial negotiation stage
Key Messages
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
Kelley Smith BL
Interlocutory Injunctions in the
context of Intellectual Property
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Very Urgent circumstances, usually designed to maintain the
status quo
• Ex parte basis
• Full and frank disclosure required
• Merck Sharpe Dohme v Clonmel Healthcare – interim
injunction granted on 20 April 2018. Interlocutory injunction
heard on 27 April 2018.
Interim Injunction
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
The test for the grant of an interlocutory injunction in intellectual
property proceedings is same as that in any other case
(Smithkline Beecham v Genthon BV [2003] IEHC 623)
Campus Oil test :
• Is there a serious issue to be tried?
• Are damages an adequate remedy?
• Where does the balance of convenience lie?
Article 9 of the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC) – the State is
obliged to ensure that interlocutory injunctions are available to
protect the owners of intellectual property
Interlocutory Injunction
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Low threshold
• If mandatory relief is sought a higher threshold of “strong
arguable case” (AIB v Diamond [2012] 3 IR 549)
• Merck Sharpe and Dohme v Clonmel – already on the market,
argued it had to “dismantle” launch. Higher standard rejected.
Reasoned judgment awaited.
• Teva v Mylan – judgment awaited
Is there a serious issue to be tried?
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Key consideration
• Requires a detailed analysis of the facts
• Courts are anxious to protect property rights - AIB v Diamond
• No rule or presumption that damages are not an adequate
remedy - Gilead Sciences v Mylan and Teva [2017] IEHC 666
and Glaxo Group Limited v Rowex Limited, Unreported High
Court 19 May 2015
• Onus on the applicant to show, as a matter of probability, that
damages are not an adequate remedy
• In terms of calculation, the test is impossibility not difficulty –
Curust Financial Services Ltd v Loewe- Lack-Werk [1994] 1 IR
450
Are damages an adequate remedy for
the applicant?
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Nature of the market – stable or unpredictable
• Sharing the market with new entrants
• Availability of relevant reliable data (eg in pharmaceutical
context, IMS data)
• Irreparable damage to the intellectual property right
• Reputational damage (eg irreversible price reduction)
• Duration of the interlocutory injunction - Noel O Murchu, t/a
Talknology v Eircell Limited [2001] IESC 15
Factors to be considered include:
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Same test applied to the respondent
• May involve consideration of hypothetical situations
Are damages an adequate remedy for
the respondent?
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Variety of factors:
• For example, in the context of patent injunctions:
- Failure to „clear the way‟ – accepted in Smithkline Beecham
v Genthon
- First mover advantage‟ - argued in Gilead Sciences v
Mylan and Teva
• Preservation of the status quo
– “not a fixed rule” - Glaxo Group v Rowex Limited
- Sometimes “happenstance” - Contech Building Products
Limited v Walsh and others [2006] IEHC 45
Balance of convenience
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
• Delay in seeking relief: considered on the facts of each case
The Irish Times v Times Newspapers Limited [2015] IEHC 490
• Acts or omissions on the part of the respondent:
eg Failure to inform of launch/surreptitious launch
and so dispute cannot be resolved in an orderly way – Warner
Lambert v Sandoz [2015] EWHC 2919 (Pat)
Other issues
Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco
Thank you
Gerry Kelly t: +353 1 614 5093
Brian McElligot t: +353 1 614 2199
Questions?