sutton044

Since the landmark UK Supreme Court decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly ( [2017] UKSC 48 ), judges of the lower courts have voiced the need for clarification from the Supreme Court.  In a Court of Appeal decision published recently, Icescape v Ice-World ( [2018] EWCA Civ 2219 ),  Lord Kitchin, who has been recently elevated to the Supreme Court,  applies the principles of Actavis . This Kat looks to see if there are any hints in this decision as to how Lord Kitchin may approach the unresolved issues raised by Actavis in the Supreme Court. The Invention - Cooling apparatus for mobile ice rinks The case at issue was whether Ice-World's patent for a mobile ice rink cooling member  EP (UK) 1462755 ,  was valid and infringed by Icescape. Mobile ice rinks are formed from an arrangement of manifolds and longitudinal pipes . Coolant pumped through  the pipes freezes surrounding water to form the skating surface.  The apparatus of pipes and manifolds ha...

The Court of Appeal bats around global FRAND rates Following this morning's Court of Appeal hand down, patent litigators across the UK and further afield have been analyzing the judgment in Unwired Planet v Huawei [2018] EWCA Civ 2344 .   The AmeriKat was only able to briefly summarize the findings, so had to rely on her friends at Bird & Bird (sounds like dinner to the AmeriKat...) in the form of Jane Mutimear and Richard Vary who expand on the Court of Appeal's findings as follows: "The Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the Unwired Planet v Huawei appeal this morning (23 October 2018).   The bench consisted of Lord Justice Kitchin (now Lord Kitchin since his elevation last month to the Supreme Court), Lord Justice Floyd and Lady Justice Asplin. They handed down a 291 paragraph, 66 page judgment dealing with Huawei's appeal and Unwired Planet's cross-appeal against Birss J's findings Huawei would be subject to an injunction in the UK unless they...

How surprised were you about the Court of Appeal's decision? For those of you who haven't been eagerly awaiting today's decision from the Court of Appeal in the Unwired Planet v Huawei appeal , let the AmeriKat surprise you with this bit of news - the Court of Appeal has upheld Birss J's decision  from last April.  In dismissing all three grounds of appeal, the Court of Appeal in Unwired Planet v Huawei [2018] EWCA Civ 2344    (with Lord Kitchin giving the lead judgment) held that: 1 .   Birss J was entitled to find that, in all the circumstances, only a global licence would be FRAND (see [129]). 2.   Huawei's appeal on the non-discriminatory element of FRAND failed.  Huawei argued that the licence offered to them did not meet the ND criteria because the global royalty rate offered to them was much higher than that contained in global licence granted to Samsung, but the Court of Appeal held that the offer was non-discriminatory (see [207]); 3...