A ruling by the High Court has resulted in new case law governing sales agencies with regard to database rights. Where a sales agency has built up a database of customer details, they will now own a database right in that database in the event that there is not an agreement with another party as to the ownership of that database.

What this means in practice is that it is now important to ensure that agency or distribution agreements include an express assignment of any database rights to the supplier of the information (or principal), rather than relying on a general IP assignment clause. She says:

In the United States there are millions of people every year who create original music, research, or write books and other forms of creative expression. These are covered by the term intellectual property and are given protection under copyright laws. If you are a publisher, writer, or editor it is crucial that you are knowledgeable about copyright issues more than ever. With the Internet there has been an enormous increase in counterfeiting and pirating of books, music, and other intellectual property. A report last year from the World Customs Organization indicated over a half a billion dollars in counterfeit and pirated products were put in the marketplace globally in 2005.

In the case of Sportwetten GmbH Gera v the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (2005), it was held that the registration of a Community trade mark was not contrary to public policy or public morality.

On 11 January 1999, OHIM published a figurative mark incorporating the word INTERTOPS in respect of Class 42: bookmakers and betting services of all kinds.

Sportwetten GmbH was the proprietor of the trade mark INTERTOPS SPORTWETTEN, registered in Germany in respect of the same types of services.

In the case of Les Laboratoires Servier and Another v KRKA Polska SP.ZO.O. and Another [2006], the claimants made an application for an interim injunction to prevent the marketing and distribution of a drug which they claimed infringed their patent. The claimant companies were in the business of manufacturing and researching pharmaceutical products. The first claimant was the second largest French pharmaceutical company worldwide, and the second claimant was a wholly owned subsidiary that marketed and researched such products within the UK.

The defendants were members of a group of companies involved in the sale and distribution of a large number of generic pharmaceutical products worldwide.

In the case of Unilin Beheer BV v Berry Floor NV & Ors, Information Management Consultancy Ltd, B&Q plc (2005), the courts ruled that the faulty drafting of a patent application did not amount to lack of reasonable care and skill.

Unilin, the claimant, applied for a patent for a floor covering and the application succeeded. Unilin then became aware of prior art which made it necessary for it to amend the patent application by reducing the scope of the main claim. Unilin also amended the body of the specification so that the text and drawings conformed to the main claim.

In Wolters Kluwer Ltd v Reed Elsevier Ltd (2005), the claimant published online seminar services for accountants under a service called CCH Seminars Online. The material for the service was provided by Online Tutors until July 2005, when this relationship was terminated. Online Tutors was engaged by the defendant to provide material for a competing service called Tolley’s Seminars Online.

In the 21 July 2005 edition of the magazine called Taxation, the defendant advertised its online tax and accountancy seminars and declared that it was the same service as that of the claimant’s. The defendant also advertised that they would offer subscribers of CCH Seminars use of Tolley’s Seminars Online free of charge until expiry of the CCH Seminars subscription.

The case of Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc and Another [2007], concerned a patent for a medical device used in operations. The defendants owned a European patent for a device called a ‘stent’ used in coronary angioplasty. The ‘stent’ is inserted into a diseased artery during the procedure to keep the artery open. The claims in the patent concerned a ‘stent’ coated with a polymer loaded with the drug taxol. This drug inhibited the development of tissue which might result in the artery closing.

In the case of Merz Pharma GmbH and Co KGaA v Allergan Inc [2006], a dispute arose as to the validity of a patent for the use of Botulinium toxins in a type of medical treatment.

Both the claimant and defendant companies were involved in the manufacture, marketing and development of pharmaceuticals. The defendant was the holder of a patent which concerned the use of ‘the neurotoxin component’ of Botulinium toxins in the treatment of pain caused by muscular activity and contracture. The Botulunium toxins were a compound of ‘the neurotoxin component’ and ‘neurotoxin associated proteins’.

The case of Landor and Hawa International Ltd v Azure Designs Ltd (CA) [2006], involved a dispute over the design of a type of suitcase. The claimant company had been designing, importing and selling travel bags and suitcases since 1985. In June 2002, the managing director produced a design for an expanding section (“the Expander Design”) which was to be incorporated into hard shell-style suitcases.

Suitcases incorporating the Expander Design were then produced and sold in the UK and abroad.

Frequently Asked Questions on Intellectual Property Protection

1. Are intellectual property assets?

Without a doubt, intellectual property (IP) is one of the most important assets that a company will own. IP can be licensed, bought, sold, hired or mortgaged like any other form of property. One of the main sources of IP is from the results of research and development work. In order for companies and individuals to maintain the value of their IP, they must ensure a sufficient level of protection and safeguard against infringing a third party’s IP, writes Dr Rosanna Cooper.

2. What are intellectual property rights (IPRs)?