Featured Insights

  • Reset
09 May 2022
Case analysis: ABP Technology Ltd v Voyetra Turtle Beach

When justice needs to be seen to be done: Paul Harris, Head of Litigation at Dehns, provides a case analysis of ABP Technology Ltd v Voyetra Turtle Beach.
27 Apr 2022
Account of profits in IPEC: when counting paper clips does matter

Paul Harris, Head of Litigation at Dehns, discusses a trial of an account of profits.
22 Mar 2022
Logos sufficient to distinguish descriptive word marks

In this article, Paul Harris, Dehns’ Head of Litigation, reviews the recent Wineapp Ltd v Johnson case.
14 Feb 2022
Licensing design rights and the burden of protection

In this article, Paul Harris, Dehns’ Head of Litigation, reviews the recent Evans V Joseph Joseph Ltd case which considers the licensing of design rights and the burden of protection.
17 Jan 2022
Proceed with caution: pre- and post-characterising claims ahead

Paul Harris, Head of Litigation at Dehns, discusses a rare case which highlights the need for caution in both drafting around prior art provided by the inventor/applicant and giving validity opinions on the same.
17 Jan 2022
Trade mark decisions in the English Courts on the issue of acquiescence

Will the CJEU follow the Advocate General’s opinion? Paul Harris, Head of Litigation at Dehns, takes a look…
06 Jan 2022
The Patent Prosecution Highway

The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) provides a mechanism for accelerating examination of a patent application at a second patent office, if examination work has already been conducted at a first patent office with whom a PPH agreement is in place. If claims of an application have been found acceptable by a first office (often the office of first filing), accelerated examination of a corresponding application at a second office may be requested. The PPH allows a second patent office to make use of relevant work already conducted by a first office when examining an application.
05 Jan 2022
High growth SMEs and a mix of IPRs

Haakon Thue Lie, IP Consultant in the Dehns Oslo office, shares his thoughts on high growth SMES, referring to new reports from IP Australia, an EUIPO/EPO report and several papers on collaboration, open innovation and IP management.
22 Oct 2021
Case analysis: Indo European Foods v EUIPO

If one posed to most EUIPO practitioners the question: ‘what do Champagne, sherry, chocolate, yoghurt and rice have in common?’ they may not have a clue. The answer is they have all been protected under the English law of extended passing off.

Using passing off as a way of opposing a later trade mark has had something of a chequered history during the time the UK has been part of the EUIPO system. The use of extended passing off brings with it a further dimension in that the owner of the goodwill is one of many, who claims that there has been some damage as a result of a misrepresentation.

However, the Indo European Foods decision has turned a corner on the understanding of this form of protection and reliance on it.
14 Oct 2021
Plausibility and undue burden: a new look insufficiency after FibroGen v Akebia

For all IP practitioners, ranging from those that draft patent specifications, through in house lawyers and outside counsel, that deal with pharmaceuticals, this case is a ‘must read’. For ‘big pharma’ itself, it is a welcome relief following (then) Arnold J’s first instance judgement on how claims with functional and structural limitations should be considered when attacked on the basis of insufficiency, in particular, a lack of plausibility and undue burden.

Subscribe here for updates on IP news, events and webinars.

 I consent to receive updates from Dehns via email
Get in
touch
+44 (0)20 7632 7200 mail@dehns.com