Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
- Litigation / Dispute Resolution (42)
- Pharma/Biotech (11)
- Company/Commercial (9)
- Information Technology (6)
- In-House (6)
- Competition/EU (5)
- Healthcare (5)
- Commodities (4)
- Media/Entertainment/Sport (3)
- Corporate (2)
- Crime (2)
- Regulatory and compliance (2)
- Clinical/Medical Negligence (1)
- Public Sector/Local Authority (1)
- Transport (Including aviation and shipping) (1)
Sort By: Newest first | Oldest first
CoA also rejects invitations from the parties to refer various questions of law to Europe.
What protection does a Community Trade Mark confer? And how far does the own name defence extend? The Court of Appeal of England and Wales was split in a recent case.
A strong indication as to the direction of travel of future legislation.
Welcome clarity from the European Patent Office as to the scope of claim ‘examination’ in the course of post-grant amendment proceedings.
SPCs and combination products: basic patent on a sole ingredient cannot double as basic patent for combination
On 12 March 2015 the CJEU gave its ruling in Actavis v Boehringer Ingelheim, yet another reference from the UK courts regarding the interpretation of the SPC Regulation 469/2009.
The CJEU has handed down its decision on an appeal brought by MEGA Brands International regarding the refusal of its application for the Community trademark MAGNEXT.
Arnold J decides what relief Enterprise is entitled to for infringement of its Community Trade Mark.
Arnold J has delivered a solution to the issue of a patent with claims in the ‘Swiss form’ but this is unlikely to be the last word in the saga. Life sciences companies – watch this space.
Arnold J does battle again with the complexities of European Trade Mark law in a dispute about the trademark SUPREME for foodstuffs for rabbits and other small animals.
Parallel imports: when it is permissible to rebrand goods to the trademark used in the importing EU member state?
The Court of Appeal has returned its judgment in parallel imports case Speciality European Pharma v Doncaster Pharmaceuticals.
Arnold J refuses to strike out Warner-Lambert's claim: construction of Swiss form claims is an issue suitable for the Supreme Court
Arnold J has handed down a second decision in the dispute between Warner-Lambert and Actavis.
In his annual review of the year’s patent cases Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co’s Head of IP, Gordon Harris, delivers his verdict on the work of the IP courts in 2014.
G-Star Raw v Rhodi and others — useful guidance on how to assess UK unregistered design right infringement
G-Star Raw v Rhodi & Ors concerned the design of jeans. G-Star brought the action for infringement of design right in its ARC pant against Rhodi – the owner of the “Voi” brand of jeans.
Warner-Lambert refused interim relief based on Swiss form claim: no serious issue to be tried regarding carved-out indication
The English Patents Court has refused an application by Warner-Lambert Company (WL) for interim relief, mandatory in nature, regarding conditions to be attached to the launch of generic pregabalin by Actavis.
Paying for delay and patent settlement arrangements — the European Commission (at last) publishes the Lundbeck decision
In 2013 the European Commission announced that it had fined H Lundbeck A/S in respect of infringements of Art 101 of the TFEU and the EEA Agreement. It has finally set out the basis for the infringements.
A reminder to all brand owners when creating brand names to give careful consideration to ensuring they are original...
Court of Appeal confirms no English celebrity image right but Topshop’s Rihanna T-shirt was passing off
The Court of Appeal has delivered its decision in the litigation between Rihanna and Topshop, upholding the trial judge’s finding that Topshop’s unauthorised use of Rihanna’s image on a T-shirt was passing off.
Enterprise Holdings Inc v Europcar Group UK and Another is worthy of comment for the number of evidential issues that the judgment addressed.
Birss J rules on product by process claim construction, extension of scope, added matter and obviousness in Hospira v Genentech.
How can a company prove that its designer came up with a print independently?