Dallas Buyers Club, poisonous priority & UPC locations – news roundup
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Dallas Buyers Club, poisonous priority & UPC locations – news roundup

Dallas Buyers Club

Recent IP developments in Europe and Asia include a defeat for Dallas Buyers Club in Australia, a new referral to the EBA in Europe and a decision on the location of the London branch of the UPC. Plus: a webinar on IP Stars and a speech by Jeremy Phillips

Dallas defeated down under

Dallas Buyers Club

Dallas Buyers Club has suffered a blow in its bid to pursue file sharers in Australia. In a judgment today, Justice Perram of the Federal Court of Australia rejected the demand letter that DBC proposed to send to 4,726 iiNet account holders. He also said that the movie company should post a bond of A$600,000 ($445,000) to secure its undertaking, as it has no presence in Australia.

DBC’s proposed demand comprised four claims: (a) the cost of an actual purchase of a single copy of the film for each copy of the film downloaded; (b) an amount relating to each infringers’ uploading activities; (c) punitive damages depending on how many copies of other copyrighted works had been downloaded by each infringer; and (d) damages arising from the amount of money it has cost DBC to obtain each infringer’s name.

Perram said that while (a) and (d) were reasonable, (b) and (c) were “untenable” and outside the powers of the court: “[T]he power does not extend to facilitating court cases or negotiating positions lacking legal substance.”

In a report, CNET said: “The ruling was greeted with surprise across the industry, with legal pundits regarding Justice Perram's decision as big win for both ISPs and customers,” while Leanne O’Donnell said on Twitter: “Crucially Perram J has limited scope of 'speculative invoicing' in Au to exclude claims for punitive damages & loss re uploading.”

EBA to review poisonous priority

epo-logo.gif

Five questions have been referred to the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal concerning the problematic issue of partial priority. The referral, in a case involving a patent filed by Infineum, aims to address a divergence in the EPO’s case law regarding priority.

In an article on his firm’s website, David Holland of Carpmaels & Ransford said: “The answers to the referred questions will rewrite, or at least significantly clarify, the concept of partial priority, with potential effects on pending patents and applications. No matter how the Enlarged Board answers the first four questions, it will have to address the ‘toxic divisional’ problem head on.”

Meanwhile, on the IPKat blog, Darren Smyth said he was “pleased to see that the Board purposely formulated the questions in terms broader than those suggested by the parties, such that they reflect the issues of partial priority generally, which can arise whenever there is state of the art potentially relevant under either Article 54(3) or 54(2) EPC, and not only in situations of ‘poisonous priority’.”

In an article on his firm’s site posted in January this year, Andrew Carridge of Reddie & Grose defined poisonous priority: “[I]n some circumstances, a European (or UK) divisional application could destroy the novelty of a claim in a parent patent or application that is not entitled to priority, or vice versa.”

We will bring further analysis of this case as it develops.

UPC’s London home

Aldgate Tower

The London branch of the UPC Central Division, which will handle life science cases, and the UK local division will be located at Aldgate Tower, an office block in the City of London. The UK IPO this week confirmed that it had signed a lease for the 8th floor of the building, which covers 19,506 sq ft (1,789 sq metres).

The decision has been broadly welcomed by central London-based IP practitioners, as the government had previously been looking at a location in the Docklands area east of the city, which is less convenient.

Read more about the other locations of the UPC in our recent article, and find more information on our dedicated page managingip.com/upc.

Where are we?

jeremy-award-100.jpg

Also in London, the next dinner meeting of UNION-IP, which takes place on September 10, features Professor Jeremy Phillips talking on the topic: “IP in 2015 - Where we are v Where I thought we'd be”.

As many readers will know, Phillips founded Managing IP back in 1990 and is well known for his blogs, publications and teaching. He has said he will retire at the end of 2015, so this may be your last chance to hear him speak.

Tickets are £44 (members); £69 (non-members) £35 (first-timers). Register here.

IP Stars – your questions answered

Phil Cox

We receive a lot of enquiries about the methodology, process and timing of our research for IP Stars and the Managing IP Awards at this time of year, as the research process starts in September.

To address some of the most frequently asked questions, we are holding a free webinar on September 3. Speakers include some of our researchers and Phil Cox of Global Law Marketing, who has experience of submitting information to IP Stars and other directories.

If you would like to know more about the process and ask questions of the researchers, please sign up for the webinar. If you can’t make the date, a recorded version will be available soon after.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The FRAND rate is only 5 cents higher than the per-device rate determined at first instance in 2023
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Nearly four months after joining Crowell & Moring, Edward Taelman reflects on starting afresh, new clients, and firm culture
Firms discuss the ebb and flow of life sciences IP work and explain how they help professionals pivot between specialities
Mercedes-Benz, Dolby Laboratories, and Panasonic discuss the merits and drawbacks of the USPTO's terminal disclaimer proposal
In-house counsel believe Chinese domestic firms are becoming as sophisticated as international firms, but they may not shift their portfolios just yet
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is looking to renew a ban that has prevented Judge Pauline Newman from hearing cases
The list of the top representative firms at the UPC may yield few surprises but their success did not come free
The German firms have accounted for 26% of all infringement actions, while US corporations appear interested in litigating at the forum, a report has revealed
Vincent Brault tells us how he fits kitesurfing into his lunchtime routine and why IP is no longer seen as ‘nerdy’
Gift this article