1-20 of 75 Results

  • Keyword: infringement x
Clear all

Chapter

This chapter explores the infringement of patents. In the United Kingdom, s. 60 of the Patents Act is the key provision on direct patent infringement. The patentee will have to show two things: first, that one or more infringing acts have been committed within the United Kingdom, and second, that the defendant's conduct falls within the scope of protection afforded to the patent, i.e. within the literal or purposive meaning of the claims. By way of response, the defendant to a patent infringement action can raise a number of different arguments. It can deny that the claimant has established the elements of the infringement action by showing that no infringing conduct has been committed, or even if it has, that the defendant's product or process is not within the meaning of the claims. The Patents Act defines infringing conduct in s. 60. One critical aspect is that it must involve some sort of commercial activity.

Chapter

This chapter focuses on the two types of copyright infringement within the CDPA 1988: primary infringement and secondary infringement. In primary infringement, the defendants are directly involved in copying, performing, and issuing to the public the copyright work, whereas secondary infringement involves people who deal with infringing copies, or facilitate such copying or other activities that are restricted by copyright. Besides this difference that has to do with the scope of rights, there is also difference on the mental element. Unlike primary infringement that does not require knowledge or intention to infringe on the part of the alleged infringer and is hence subject to strict liability, secondary infringement occurs where the defendant knew or had reason to believe that activities in question are wrongful. This is assessed on the basis of an objective test, namely what matters is what a reasonable person would have thought in the relevant circumstances.

Chapter

L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, and P. Johnson

This chapter considers the question of what amounts to copyright infringement, first by discussing ‘primary’ infringement and ‘secondary’ infringement. It then explains the three criteria used to determine whether copyright in a work has been infringed: whether the defendant carried out one of the activities that falls within the copyright owner’s rights; whether there is a causal link between the work used (that is, reproduced, issued, rented, performed, communicated, or adapted) by the defendant and the copyright work; and whether the restricted act has been committed in relation to the work or a substantial part thereof. It also looks at the European approach to finding infringement in relation to authorial works and compares it with the British approach before concluding with a description of non-literal copying of such works.

Chapter

L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, and P. Johnson

This chapter deals with patent infringement and the scope of protection that the law provides to patent owners. It discusses three criteria that are used to determine whether a patent has been infringed: the types of activity that constitute an infringement; whether the activity in question falls within the scope of the patent monopoly; and whether the defendant is able to invoke any of the defences that are available to them. After noting the distinction between direct and indirect infringement based on patent law, the chapter turns to the scope of protection for biotechnological inventions, patents for a process, and novelty-of-use patents. It then considers the grounds on which patentees may find liability for infringement. Relevant provisions that are found in the Patents Act 1977 and the European Patents Convention are also addressed.

Chapter

L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, and P. Johnson

This chapter considers the question of what amounts to copyright infringement, first by differentiating between ‘primary’ infringement and ‘secondary’ infringement. It then explains the three criteria used to determine whether copyright in a work has been infringed: whether the defendant carried out one of the activities that falls within the copyright owner’s rights; whether there is a causal link between the work used (that is, reproduced, issued, rented, performed, communicated, or adapted) by the defendant and the copyright work; and whether the restricted act has been committed in relation to the work or a substantial part thereof. It also looks at the European approach to finding infringement (following the Infopaq decision) and compares it with the British approach before concluding with a description of non-literal copying of such works.

Chapter

L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, and P. Johnson

This chapter deals with patent infringement and the scope of protection that the law provides to patent owners. It discusses three criteria that are used to determine whether a patent has been infringed: the types of activity that constitute an infringement; whether the activity in question falls within the scope of the patent monopoly; and whether the defendant is able to invoke any of the defences that are available to them. The chapter discusses in detail the right to make a product (and the relationship with repair), the concept of a ‘direct’ product from a patented process, and infringement of new medical use patents, as well as ‘indirect’ infringement by supplying means to put an invention into effect. It then considers the scope of protection, closely examining the evolution in the United Kingdom of the interpretation of claims and the recognition of a doctrine of equivalents extending the scope of protection beyond the terms of the claims. The chapter also examines the defences of private and non-commercial use, experimental use, and ‘farmers’ privileges’.

Chapter

Essential Cases: EU Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Commission v Greece (‘Crete case II’) (Case C-387/97), EU:C:2000:356, [2000] ECR I-5092, 4 July 2000. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Noreen O'Meara.

Chapter

Essential Cases: EU Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Commission v Greece (‘Crete case II’) (Case C-387/97), EU:C:2000:356, [2000] ECR I-5092, 4 July 2000. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Noreen O’Meara.

Chapter

Essential Cases: EU Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Commission v Greece (‘Crete case II’) (Case C-387/97), EU:C:2000:356, [2000] ECR I-5092, 4 July 2000. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Noreen O’Meara.

Chapter

This chapter discusses the various acts that can infringe copyright. A distinction is made between primary infringement and secondary infringement. All forms of primary infringement involve copying, whether through reproduction or through performance of the work. Under s. 16(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the rights of the copyright owner are infringed if: the work is copied; copies of the work are issued to the public; the work is lent or rented to the public; the work is performed, shown, or played in public; the work is communicated to the public; or an adaptation is made of the work or any of the above is done in relation to an adaptation. Secondary infringement involves the commercial exploitation of works that attract copyright.

Chapter

This chapter focuses on trade mark infringement, setting out the rights of a trade mark owner to prevent others from making use of any sign which is the same as or similar to the registered mark in the course of trade. A claimant who brings a trade mark infringement action will have to show two things: that an act of infringement has been committed, and that such conduct falls within the scope of protection afforded to the registered mark. Once these two points have been established, the court will normally find in favour of the claimant unless one or more of the counter-arguments raised by the defendant succeeds. A defendant who is sued for trade mark infringement, besides denying that infringement has been made out or raising one of the statutory defences, will usually try to counterclaim that the mark should be revoked or declared invalid.

Chapter

This chapter focuses on the rights of those wishing to take action against an infringement of competition law, potentially with a view to being compensated for the harm they may have suffered. One option is going to the relevant competition authority and filing a complaint to trigger the public enforcement route, saving the cost of litigation. The other option is to seek competition law enforcement in private claims before the courts. Claimants may seek damages or other remedies, including injunctions. In the UK, damages may be sought before the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) and before the national courts. Collective claims can only be brought before the CAT. The number of private actions is increasing, and efforts have been made both by the EU and UK legislators to encourage more private litigation.

Chapter

This chapter focuses on rights in performances, which covers all aspects of the making of a recording of a performance and its subsequent exploitation. The discussion includes subsistence of rights; term of protection; the qualification requirement; content and infringement; the nature of the performer’s rights and their transfer; and moral rights.

Chapter

This chapter discusses the law on patent infringement and revocation. The grounds on which a patent may be revoked are established by s. 72 of the UK Patents Act 1977. On the issue of infringement, s. 60 of the 1977 Act is the key provision and unusually makes separate, although not dissimilar, provisions for patents that are for products and those that are for processes. Interpretation of claims is a key aspect of any infringement case.

Chapter

This chapter discusses the law on trade mark infringement and revocation. Section 10 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 establishes the basic criteria for an infringement action. If a mark is already on the Trade Marks Register, it is an infringement to use the same mark for the same goods or services. The grant of a trade mark lasts initially for 10 years from the date of its registration, and this may be renewed for a seemingly indefinite number of further periods of 10 years thereafter on payment of the appropriate fee. There are four grounds listed in s. 46(1) of the 1994 Act for revocation: (i) five years’ lack of genuine use of the mark in the UK without cause; (ii) a suspension for the same period (after initial use); (iii) the mark has become the common name for the product in question in the trade; and (iv) if the mark has been used in a misleading manner, especially as to the nature, quality, or origin of the goods or services in question.

Chapter

Essential Cases: EU Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Commission v Poland (Case C-619/18), EU:C:2019:531, [2008] ECR I-6351, 24 June 2019. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Noreen O'Meara.

Chapter

Essential Cases: EU Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Commission v Poland (Case C-619/18), EU:C:2019:531, [2008] ECR I-6351, 24 June 2019. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Noreen O’Meara.

Chapter

Essential Cases: EU Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Commission v Poland (Case C-619/18), EU:C:2019:531, [2008] ECR I-6351, 24 June 2019. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Noreen O’Meara.

Chapter

This chapter focuses on who is entitled to apply for a design registration as well as the rules relating to ownership and exploitation with respect to registered designs in the UK and unregistered Community designs. It also discusses infringement and exceptions in the three harmonized systems. It begins by considering the question of who is initially entitled to a design, citing entitlement under the UK Registered Designs Act 1949. It then turns to assignment and licensing, the optimal period of protection for a design, and the British approach to infringement. Finally, the chapter examines exceptions and defences that are available when dealing with design protection.

Chapter

L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, and P. Johnson

This chapter focuses on the unregistered Design Right as a means of protecting designs in the United Kingdom under Part III of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It begins by considering the subsistence of the Design Right, with emphasis on the requirement that there be a ‘design’ and exclusions to design protection by the unregistered design right. The chapter then discusses issues of ownership, duration, and infringement as well as the defences that are available in cases of infringement of unregistered designs.