Edward Cronan

AIM Sport v Supponor [2023] EWHC 164 (Pat) – Edward acted for AIM Sport in their successful patent infringement claim against Supponor. Mr Justice Meade found AIM Sport’s patent to be both valid and infringed.  The claim related to AIM Sport’s technology for virtual advertising in sports stadiums, which allows in-stadium advertising boards to be replaced in live broadcasts overseas with alternative content. Led by Piers Acland KC.

Nokia v OPPO & OnePlus [2022] EWHC 2814 (Pat) – Edward acted for Nokia, who were successful in the first UK trial of this multinational patent dispute. Nokia proved their EP560 LTE implementation patent to be valid and infringed by certain Oppo and OnePlus phones. On the way to trial this involved obtaining alternative service by email, USC 1782 disclosure from Qualcomm, and conducting experiments.

Carku v NOCO [2022] EWHC 2034 (Pat): – Edward represented Carku, successfully arguing that NOCO’s use of the Amazon IP complaints procedure gave rise to unjustified threats of patent infringement. This was the first High Court trial to consider this issue. Meade J held that the threats were unjustified because the patent was both invalid and not infringed. Led by Hugo Cuddigan KC

Advanced Bionics v MED-EL [2022] EWHC 1345 (Pat) – Edward acted for Advanced Bionics in their successful bid to revoke a patent relating to an MRI-compatible medical device. Supply of replacement parts by Advanced Bionics was also held not to give rise to infringement under section 60(2). Led by Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC.

Neurim v Teva [2022] EWHC 954 (Pat) – Edward acted for Teva in successfully resisting an application by Neurim and Flynn Pharma for an interim injunction to restrain Teva’s dealing in its generic prolonged-release Melatonin pharmaceutical product. Led by Charlotte May QC.

Commscope v SOLiD Technologies [2022] EWHC 769 (Pat) – Edward acted for the successful defendant, SOLiD technologies, in this patent trial relating to digital DAS technologies for point to multipoint distribution of RF telecommunications over fibre optic cables. The patent in suit was revoked for reason of obviousness and anticipation.

Thom Browne Inc. v Adidas AG and Adidas International Marketing B.V. – Edward acts for the fashion designer Thom Browne in this claim for revocation of nineteen Adidas trade marks, in which the well known sportswear brand Adidas counterclaims for an injunction against the sale of goods bearing the Thom Browne four bar design. Led by Philip Roberts QC.

Optis Cellular Technology Inc v Apple Retail UK Ltd [2021] EWHC 2694 (Pat) – Edward acted for Sisvel, and its CEO, Mr Mattia Fogliacco, in this hearing before Meade J which related to an alleged breach of confidence in a draft judgment in proceedings between Optis and Apple.

Nicoventures Trading Limited v Phillip Morris Products SA [2021] EWHC 1997 (Pat) – Edward acted for Phillip Morris in this trial in relation to four patents relating to systems for heating tobacco using thin-film heater elements, led by Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC and Tom Alkin.

Nokia v Oppo, Oneplus and Realme – Edward acts for Nokia in the UK arm of this multi-jurisdiction FRAND dispute and drafted Nokia’s pleadings.

Mitsubishi & Sisvel v Archos and others – Edward was instructed by the Claimants on the first technical trial in this multi-party FRAND dispute, which settled shortly before trial. Edward acted for the Claimants in both the technical and FRAND sides of the proceedings, for example in [2021] EWHC 889 (Pat).

Philip Morris v British American Tobacco [2021] EWHC 537 (Pat) – Edward was junior to Iain Purvis QC and Tom Alkin in Philip Morris’ successful claim to revoke two BAT patents on the grounds of obviousness and added matter.

Shenzen Carku Technology Co. v The NOCO Company [2020] EWHC 2104 (Pat) – Edward was junior to Hugo Cuddigan QC in this application for summary judgment and an interim declaration of non-infringement of a patent relating to circuit design in car battery jump-starters. The claim is due for trial in 2022.

TOT v Vodafone – Edward is instructed by Spanish telecoms innovator TOT in its patent infringement and breach of confidence claim against Vodafone, led by Michael Bloch QC. TOT successfully resisted Vodafone’s jurisdiction challenge, see [2021] EWHC 46 (Pat).

TBD (Owen Holland) Limited v G2A Limited and others [2020] EWCA Civ 1182 – Edward acted for the Defendants in this landmark Court of Appeal decision regarding the execution of search orders covering digital materials, litigation privilege, and permission to bring committal proceedings.

Molavi v Hibbert and others [2020] EWHC 121 (Ch); [2020] 4 WLR 46; [2020] WLR(D) 58 – Edward acted for the screenwriter Nigel McCrery in this case regarding copyright infringement and breach of confidence relating to the BBC drama Silent Witness.

Emtelle v Hexatronic – Edward acted for Emtelle in this case relating to two patents for inventions regarding blowable fibre optic cables. This case featured substantial infringement and validity experiments. It settled shortly before trial in early 2020.

Apple v Conversant – Edward was instructed on behalf of Apple in relation to a patent trial concerning the remote control functionality of OS X, now settled.

TBD v G2A Limited [2019] EWHC 2390 (Ch) – a copyright and breach of confidence case in the aviation industry. Edward was junior to Nicholas Caddick QC in this hearing relating to conduct of a search order.

TQ Delta v ZyXEL – Edward acted on behalf of ZyXEL in these patent infringement proceedings in xDSL modem technologies. Edward also worked on the FRAND licence proceedings, which were the first in the English Courts to look at SEP licensing terms under the ITU RAND obligation, prior to their being vacated following the court of appeal’s judgment in [2019] EWCA Civ 1277.

Edward has also acted without a leader in the UKIPO and IPEC in proceedings including:

• GREEN ISLE: Successfully overcame opposition based on trade mark BLACK ISLE for goods in the same class.
• HARLEY HOSPITALS: Successful before the appointed person in opposition against five marks containing the term HARLEY, registered for medical services.
• Currentbody.com v Beauty Solutions Trading Limited: Successfully obtained an injunction to restrain infringement of copyright in website layout and code following Ds’ failure to file a defence.
• Repairtech Services (UK) Limited v Clipper Logistics: Successful trade mark opposition based on rights in passing off, featuring issues of concurrent use
• Anglian Windows Limited v Anglian Roofing and Building Limited: Successfully obtained injunction to restrain trade mark infringement in the IPEC.
• Morley’s (Fast Foods) Limited v Nanthakumar and others: trade mark and passing off proceedings between two fast-food franchises.
• Somfy Activities SA (Appellant) v Building Robotics Inc.: Appeal to the appointed person in relation to issues of inherent distinctiveness.

As a solicitor:

Liqwd Inc. v L’Oreal [2018] EWHC 1394 (Pat), patent infringement proceedings concerning a maleic acid additive for the prevention of damage to hair in bleaching, and [2018] EWHC 1845 (Pat) concerning the admissibility of evidence after trial.

HTC v IPCOM [2017] EWCA 90, concerning an SEP relating to syntax elements used in 3G telecoms.

MSD v Shionogi [2016] EWHC 2989 (Pat), patent infringement and validity proceedings concerning the small molecule HIV integrase inhibitor Raltegravir.

Contributed to as a pupil:

PPL v Ellis [2018] EWCA Civ 2812, concerning the availability of additional damages for copyright infringement and the interaction of the CDPA 1988 with the IP Enforcement Directive.

Poul Chang v Bailcast [2018] EWHC 3432 (Ch), the first case to consider the interaction of the Community Designs Regulation and the related actions provisions of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) in the English Courts.

AMS Neve v Heritage Audio (C-172/18) This case in the CJEU related to online targeting and jurisdiction under the EU Trade Marks Regulation.

Rockwool v Knauf  (O/291/19) This revocation action against two patents took place in the UKIPO and raised issues in relation to enablement, obviousness, and the applicability of the law of plausibility to non-medical inventions.