Michael Hicks appeared for the Claimants (Dr Craig Wright & Ors), instructed by Harcus Parker, in their successful appeal from an order of Mellor J refusing permission to serve a claim form out […]
Cases
Barrister
Practice area
AIM Sport v Supponor [2023] EWHC 164 (Pat)
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 […]
Shine TV Ltd v. Ska Trading Ltd [2022] EWHC 3156 (Ch)
MISTER CHEF v. MASTERCHEF: conceptual dissonance? On 15 December, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE handed down a short decision in an appeal from the Trade Marks Registry in Shine TV Ltd v. Ska Trading Ltd [2022] EWHC […]
Nokia v OPPO & OnePlus
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 […]
Pasternak v Prescott [2022] EWHC 2695 (Ch)
Summary The High Court found that a novel partly based on the real-life love affair of Boris Pasternak, author of the world-famous Doctor Zhivago, did not infringe the copyright in the selection, structure […]
Monster Energy Co. v. Red Bull GmbH – CH-2021-000211
The High Court did not believe that Monster didn’t intend to benefit from the Red Bull brand “‘Red Dawg’ will in fact, whether that is what Monster subjectively intended or not, be given […]
WaterRower (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd (T/A Topiom) [2022] EWHC 2084 (IPEC)
Strike Out Refused: WaterRower could be a work of artistic craftsmanship The Defendant sought to strike out the Claimant’s claim for infringement of copyright in its water resistance rowing machine (the WaterRower), on […]
Lifestyle Equities & Anr v Amazon & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 552
The Court of Appeal found that listings on Amazon’s US website targeted consumers in the UK/EU and thus Amazon had infringed Lifestyle’s UK/EU trade marks. Michael Edenborough QC and Thomas St Quintin, instructed […]
Shenzhen Carku Technology Co Ltd v The Noco Company [2020] EWHC 2104 (Pat)
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. In the judgment handed […]
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 […]
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 […]
Indo European Foods Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (T-342/20) [2022] E.T.M.R. 1
Representing the successful appellant in seeking to annul a decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal where it had decided that Brexit meant the earlier UK rights could be disregarded in an opposition […]
Thom Browne Inc. v Adidas AG and Adidas International Marketing B.V.
Thom Browne Inc. v Adidas AG and Adidas International Marketing B.V. Edward Cronan acts for the fashion designer Thom Browne in this claim for revocation of nineteen Adidas trade marks, in which the […]
Advanced Bionics v MED-EL
Advanced Bionics v MED-EL Edward Cronan acted for Advanced Bionics in this medical industry claim for a DNI and for revocation of a patent relating to an MRI-compatible cochlear implant system. Led by […]
Nokia Technologies v OnePlus Technology
UK Patents Court: Overseas Defendants no exception to commitment to 12 month trial timetable In ongoing patent infringement proceedings between Nokia and the phone manufacturer Oppo the Patents Court has demonstrated that it […]
Urbanbubble Ltd & others v Urban Evolution
Urbanbubble Ltd & others v Urban Evolution Property Management Ltd & others [2022] EWHC 134 (IPEC). When consent precludes trade mark infringement: Amanda Michaels acted for the successful Defendants in an action for […]
Website blocking injunctions – streamripping and cyberlocker sites blocked pursuant to s.97A CDPA jurisdiction
In Young Turks Recordings Limited v BT an ors [2021] EWHC 410 (Ch.) and Capitol Records and ors v BT and ors [2021] EWHC 409 (Ch), the High Court issued s.97A CDPA 1988 “website blocking” injunctions. Young […]
Philip Morris v RAI: British American Tobacco – patent for heated tobacco device revoked for lack of inventive step and added matter
This was a bid by Philip Morris to revoke two British American Tobacco patents revoked for obviousness and added matter. The trial was expedited in order to provide Philip Morris […]
Lyle & Scott v American Eagle Outfitters – permission to serve out of jurisdiction and Rome II Regulation
This was an application to set aside permission to serve proceedings on the US defendant alleging breach of a worldwide trade mark co-existence agreement and passing off. Both parties used eagle devices for […]
A Ward Attachments v Fabcon Engineering Ltd – “Buzz” test for obviousness and acquiescence based on failure to respond to defendant’s letter
Judgment 29th July 2021 This was a patent infringement case in IPEC which concerned apparatus for receiving freight containers from the bed of a truck. Infringement and validity were in issue. On validity, […]
Semtech Corp v Lacuna Space Ltd – English Courts had no jurisdiction over IP claim against French employees
This case concerned whether or not the English courts had jurisdiction over a company’s claims against an English company and two former French employees who were domiciled in France. The French employees had […]
Lifestyles Equities CV v Copyrights Group – Greenwich Polo Club device marks do not infringe Beverly Hills Polo Club registered trade mark
This case concerned whether various device marks including the words “Greenwich Polo Club” infringed registered trade marks for “Beverly Hills Polo Club” and amounted to passing off. The court held that there was […]
