The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
Chemical patent infringement claim. ICI: valid patent had not been infringed. Imperial Chemical Industries v Montedison (UK) & Anor (1995). (CA (Stuart-Smith LJ, Morritt LJ, Sir John May) 7/3/95)
Summary: Claim for infringement and counterclaim for invalidity of plaintiff's patent.
Plaintiff's appeal from dismissal of its claim for infringement of Patent No.1,493,393. In the action the defendants accepted they had carried out the actions alleged to amount to infringement but by their defence denied patent infringement and counterclaimed for its revocation. The issues before the judge involved the construction of the patent and whether it was invalid for lack of a fair basis or ambiguity in infringement. The judge decided the issues of construction, save for one in favour of the plaintiff. He rejected the defence and counterclaim based on invalidity but was unable to determine whether the defendant's product, 'Velite', was an infringement and accordingly, since the burden of proof was on the plaintiff and the plaintiff had failed to discharge it, the claim failed. An application was made by the plaintiff to adduce the evidence of Professor Andrews in support of its appeal.