Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

Tuesday 1 May 2018

In-House Counsel Masterclass:

IP & Technology Law

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

Richard Woulfe, Partner, Mason Hayes & Curran

Welcome

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

Gerard Kelly, Partner & Head of IP, Mason Hayes &

Curran

Recent IP Case Law

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Trade Marks

• Copyright

• Designs

• Patents

Key Developments and Trends

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

Trade Marks

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• UK Court of Appeal

• Nestlé„s 3D shape mark for the four-fingered Kit-Kat product

• Not acquired sufficient distinctive character on its own

• Contrary decision of the General Court

Societe Des Produits Nestlé v Cadbury UK Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 358

Trade Marks

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Twin Peaks chocolate bar

• Counterclaimed Toblerone shape is no longer distinctive

• Review of mark based on principles in the KitKat proceedings

Mondelez v Poundland

Trade Marks

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• 2 applications:

• “The ratio of the colours is approximately 50%-50%”

• “The two colours will be applied in equal proportion and

juxtaposed to each other”

• Trade mark invalid. Result:

“allowed for the arrangement of those colours in numerous

different combinations”

Red Bull GmbH v EUIPO T-101/15 and T-102/15, 30 November 2017

Trade Marks

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• „NUTRIPLETE‟ vs „NUTRIPLEN‟

• Trade mark infringement

• Related proceedings against wholesalers and suppliers

• Account of profits denied based on conduct

• How do you quantify damages?

Nutrimedical B.V. & Anor v Nualtra Limited [2017] IEHC 253

Trade Marks

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Goodwill associated with solicitors name

• Reputation must be distinguished from goodwill

• Goodwill vested in the firm

• Revocation of „Bhayani Bracewell‟ registered trade mark on

grounds that it would mislead the public

Bhayani and another v Taylor Bracewell LLP [2016] EWHC 3360

Passing Off

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Court of Appeal overturned HC decision

• “erroneous interpretation” that all material and relevant

features of both products should be set out in the

comparative advertisement

• Preference of evidence of one expert not enough on its own

Aldi Stores (Ireland) Ltd & Anor -v- Dunnes Stores [2017] IECA 116

Comparative Advertising

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Leave to Appeal to SC granted

• Perceived injustice to the unsuccessful party does not mean

the matter is “in the interests of justice”

• Competition between retailers and the rules on such

conduct are issues of “general public importance”

Aldi Stores (Ireland) Ltd & Anor -v- Dunnes Stores [2017] IECA 116

Comparative Advertising

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

Copyright

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Injunction blocking access to servers

• „live‟ blocking order

Motion Picture Association v Virgin Media, Eircom, Three etc.

• Streaming films / tv shows

• blocking order

Football Association Premier League v BT [2017] EWHC 480 (Ch)

Copyright – TV Shows and Films

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Copyright ownership in the movie script for Florence Foster

Jenkins

• Minor editing changes and contribution does not amount to

joint ownership

• No evidence of common design

Nicholas Martin v Julia Kogan [2017] EWHC 2927

Copyright

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

Designs

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Territorial jurisdiction of a community design court extends

throughout the EU

• Where numerous infringements in numerous MS, the Court

must make an overall assessment to determine the place of

the initial act of infringement

C- 24/16 and C- 15/16 Nintendo Co. Ltd v BigBen Interactive GmbH

Designs

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

The relationship between defendants

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

Patents

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Cancer treatment pemetrexed

• Arnold J – no infringement direct or indirect

• Court of Appeal – indirect infringement

• Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal

• Introduction of Doctrine of Equivalents under UK Law

Actavis v Eli Lily [2017] UKSC 48

Patents

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Invalidity proceedings – Judgment of Barrett J

• Court of Appeal

• Application to Amend the Patent

• Whether leave required to amend a Statement of Opposition

• No leave required - even if leave was required it would be

granted

• Liberal jurisdiction

Boehringer v The Patents Acts [2018] IEHC 165

Patents

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Account of Profits in lieu of an injunction for future infringement

• Not covered in pleadings

• No unconscionable or improper conduct as allowed product

continue

GlaxoSmithKline v Wyeth [2017] EWHC 91 (Pat)

Patents

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Courts are remaining strict on what can be protected by trade

mark law as a “monopoly for all time”.

• Much anticipated decision of the Supreme Court on

comparative advertising regulations

• Further scope for patent infringement actions with the

introduction of the doctrine of equivalents

Some conclusions

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

Brian McElligott, Partner, Mason Hayes & Curran

Protection and Monetisation

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

IP Lifecycle

Identify

Evaluate

Protect Enforce

Monetise

Exit

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Protect = File + Prosecute Increasingly

complex

seek early advice on strategies

• Monetise = Commercialisation / Licensing

avoid common pitfalls

seek support at commercial negotiation stage

Key Messages

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Cancelled because found to

be:

• “Shape necessary to achieve

a technical result – rotation

of the movable elements of

the cube.”

Shapes – Very Challenging

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Registered

• The shape significantly

departs from the customs

and norms for chocolate

Shapes – Not all bad!

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Registered Community Design (RCD)

• Unregistered Community Design

• Product Packaging

• Unregistered Trade Mark (Passing Off)

• Copyright (limited scope)

Trends and Strategies

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Series marks

• Very useful in FMCG and retail multiple

representations can be covered in a single

filing

Ireland and UK (Not EU)

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Draft agreement – Title IV IP – Articles 50 -57

• Broadly positive from brand owners perspective

o take effect from end of transition period

o equivalent UK right with date of priority

o automatically and free of charge

Brexit! (Uncertainty)

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Geographical Indications to be protected by equivalent national

right

• IP representation – silent!

• Assess your territorial scope and file accordingly

Brexit! (Uncertainty)

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

Key Contractual Must Haves

• Scope – exclusive / sole / non-exclusive

- territory (EU – exhaustion of rights)

- clear and precise!

• Performance requirements exclusivity

• Clear royalty and payment terms

Monetise/ Commercialise

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Licensee‟s use of the trade mark to accrue to the benefit of the

licensor (beware)

• Provide an indemnity in favour of the licensor (multiple

licensees)

• Report promptly infringement or damaging use of trade mark to

licensor

• Specify conduct of proceedings for infringing use

• Sub-licensing and assignment

Monetise/ Commercialise

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Protect = File + Prosecute Increasingly

complex

seek early advice on strategies

• Monetise = Commercialisation / Licensing

avoid common pitfalls

seek support at commercial negotiation stage

Key Messages

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

Kelley Smith BL

Interlocutory Injunctions in the

context of Intellectual Property

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Very Urgent circumstances, usually designed to maintain the

status quo

• Ex parte basis

• Full and frank disclosure required

• Merck Sharpe Dohme v Clonmel Healthcare – interim

injunction granted on 20 April 2018. Interlocutory injunction

heard on 27 April 2018.

Interim Injunction

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

The test for the grant of an interlocutory injunction in intellectual

property proceedings is same as that in any other case

(Smithkline Beecham v Genthon BV [2003] IEHC 623)

Campus Oil test :

• Is there a serious issue to be tried?

• Are damages an adequate remedy?

• Where does the balance of convenience lie?

Article 9 of the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC) – the State is

obliged to ensure that interlocutory injunctions are available to

protect the owners of intellectual property

Interlocutory Injunction

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Low threshold

• If mandatory relief is sought a higher threshold of “strong

arguable case” (AIB v Diamond [2012] 3 IR 549)

• Merck Sharpe and Dohme v Clonmel – already on the market,

argued it had to “dismantle” launch. Higher standard rejected.

Reasoned judgment awaited.

• Teva v Mylan – judgment awaited

Is there a serious issue to be tried?

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Key consideration

• Requires a detailed analysis of the facts

• Courts are anxious to protect property rights - AIB v Diamond

• No rule or presumption that damages are not an adequate

remedy - Gilead Sciences v Mylan and Teva [2017] IEHC 666

and Glaxo Group Limited v Rowex Limited, Unreported High

Court 19 May 2015

• Onus on the applicant to show, as a matter of probability, that

damages are not an adequate remedy

• In terms of calculation, the test is impossibility not difficulty –

Curust Financial Services Ltd v Loewe- Lack-Werk [1994] 1 IR

450

Are damages an adequate remedy for

the applicant?

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Nature of the market – stable or unpredictable

• Sharing the market with new entrants

• Availability of relevant reliable data (eg in pharmaceutical

context, IMS data)

• Irreparable damage to the intellectual property right

• Reputational damage (eg irreversible price reduction)

• Duration of the interlocutory injunction - Noel O Murchu, t/a

Talknology v Eircell Limited [2001] IESC 15

Factors to be considered include:

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Same test applied to the respondent

• May involve consideration of hypothetical situations

Are damages an adequate remedy for

the respondent?

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Variety of factors:

• For example, in the context of patent injunctions:

- Failure to „clear the way‟ – accepted in Smithkline Beecham

v Genthon

- First mover advantage‟ - argued in Gilead Sciences v

Mylan and Teva

• Preservation of the status quo

– “not a fixed rule” - Glaxo Group v Rowex Limited

- Sometimes “happenstance” - Contech Building Products

Limited v Walsh and others [2006] IEHC 45

Balance of convenience

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

• Delay in seeking relief: considered on the facts of each case

The Irish Times v Times Newspapers Limited [2015] IEHC 490

• Acts or omissions on the part of the respondent:

eg Failure to inform of launch/surreptitious launch

and so dispute cannot be resolved in an orderly way – Warner

Lambert v Sandoz [2015] EWHC 2919 (Pat)

Other issues

Dublin London New York San Franscisco Dublin London New York San Francisco

Thank you

Gerry Kelly t: +353 1 614 5093

e: gkelly@mhc.ie

Brian McElligot t: +353 1 614 2199

e: bmcelligott@MHC.ie

Questions?