|
BOOKS Environmental law- Risk and Liability 1993 Internet Law and Emergent Communication Technology 1993 Unfair Contract terms in Europe 1995 Managers Guide To Understanding Confidentiality Agreements - Law & Practice 1999 Managers Guide To Understanding Commonly Used Contract Terms - 2004 Managers Guide To Understanding Commercial Contract Negotiation -2004 Implied Terms in English Contract Law Made Simple - 2004 The Lawyers Guide to Forensic Computing 2006 Legal Costs - Golden Nuggets - Maintaining and Reducing Budgets in Litigation- 2007 Contract Terms - Golden Nuggets - 2007 International Online-Business Law - England and Wales Section. 1997 to 2008 World Online-Business Law - England and Wales Section 2005-2008
|
On 1 July 2010 the European Commission published a Green Paper setting out policy options for introducing a European contract law for consumers and businesses.
more...
Oct 2010: Müller supplies dairy products and RTS supplies and installs machinery for packaging food products. Müller selected RTS to supply it with a system to package yoghurt pots and start was agreed under a letter of intent that set out the full contract sum and it also stated that the final contract would be based on Müller’s amended form of MF1 and for a limited four-week “initial” period. Negotiations dragged and the initial period came and went and the letter of intent was not issued. RTS worked and Müller paid until a dispute aose. RTS refused to finish installing the equipment. Mr Justice Clarke of Technology and Construction Court found that the letter of intent had expired at the end of the initial period and did not govern the relationship between the parties thereafter. It also decided that as the parties continued to carry out works after the letter of intent had expired, they intended to create legal relations and enter into a contract but was not the MF1 terms but one that excluded some of the MF/1 terms (limited contract). RTS now argued that no contract was concluded after the letter of intent expired and as there was no formal contract RTS was entitled to bring a quantum meruit claim. The Court of Appeal decided that there was no contract between the parties because the MF1 terms included a “subject to contract” clause and therefore that no contract was formed. The Supreme Court confirmed that the letter of intent had expired at the end of the initial period; and conduct thereafter suggested that parties intended to enter into a contract and amounted to a waiver of the “subject to contract” clause and that therefore the full MF1 had been entered into. Comment: Three separate court proceedings! Three different decisions! Make sure letters of intent are for (i) a limited scope of works and (ii) a limited period of time and (iii) for a limited maximum sum and (iv) must specify what will happen when the letter expires and the default position if the expected position does not occur. RTS Flexible Systems Limited v Molkerei Alois Müller Gmbh & Company KG (UK Production) (2010). (The Müller case)
New £500,000 Data Protection Fines come into play. From 6th April 2010, the Information Commissioner (ICO) will be able to order organisations to pay up to £500,000 as a penalty for serious breaches of the Data Protection Act. The ICO has produced statutory guidance about how it proposes to use this new power, which has been approved by the Secretary of State for Justice, and was laid before Parliament in January.
FNM Corporation Ltd v Drammock International Ltd & Anor [2009] EWHC 1294 (Pat) (15 June 2009)
A patent claiming an aerosol spray containing water and dimethyl ether was invalid for lack of novelty and obviousness in light of prior art and common general knowledge. Communications from the claimant and its solicitors conveyed threats of proceedings for patent infringement but were protected by s.70(2A)(b) of the Patents Act 1977 because the claimant did not have reason to suspect that the patent was invalid at the time of the threats. Court: High Court (Chancery Division) (England and Wales)
Motorola’s European patent concerning a messaging gateway system was invalid as lacking an inventive step, and was not infringed by two systems operated by the claimant under the well-known BlackBerry trade mark. Court: High Court (Patents Court) (England and Wales)
Red Spider Technology v Omega Completions Technology, Ch Div (Mann J), 21/1/10 Claims for infringement of a patent concerning a water-based injection valve for use in oilfield exploration, and for infringement of design right in the valve, both failed. Further, the patent was invalid for anticipation and obviousness. Properly construed, the patent did not claim the feature relied on. Further, the priority document relied on did not disclose all the integers of Claim 1, and so the sale of the valve by the patentee before the patent application date anticipated the patent. Further, the invention was obvious over the common general knowledge and a piece of prior art. The defendant’s reproduction of the valve by working from the patent drawings was not copying of the valve design for design right purposes because the ideas taken were at a high level of abstraction. Court: No court set yet
Blinx UK Ltd v Blinkbox Entertainment Ltd, Ch Div (Floyd J), 5/2/10 Location: Case TypesIntellectual PropertyTrade Marks Posted by: Law Brief Publishing 24/02/2010 23:24 An application for an interim injunction, restraining use of a name alleged to amount to passing off and trade mark infringement, was refused where the claimant had delayed more than a year in bringing the application. The claimant’s website BLINKX.COM provided access to film, television and video content, and the defendant had launched BLINKBOX.COM offering a service for viewing, customising and sharing television and video clips. It had been unreasonable and unjustified for the claimant to wait until confusion arose in the market before commencing proceedings Court: No court set yet
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Premium Aircraft Interiors UK Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1062 (22 October 2009) The Court of Appeal found in favour of the appellant patentee, reversing the decision below and holding a patent for an airline seating system valid and infringed by the respondent’s system for a rival airline (BA). The core finding was that the claimed invention was not limited to systems which use ‘flip-over’ seats (contoured as a seat on one side, and flat on the other side for use as a bed). The patent was not invalid for added matter because the parent application did cover systems which did not use “flip-over”. Jacob LJ clarified that the skilled reader of a patent can be expected to know (or to find out) about such matters as explicit drafting conventions and divisional applications. Court: Court Of Appeal (England and Wales)
Cranway Ltd v Playtech Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 1588 (Pat) (07 July 2009)
A patent concerning a home computer gaming system was revoked on grounds of (1) lack of novelty in light of the prior art; (2) obviousness over the common general knowledge and prior art; and (3) consisting wholly of excluded matter under s.1(2) of the Patents Act 1977, the subject matter being a computer program not claiming a technical effect. Court: High Court (Patents Court) (England and Wales)