header-logo header-logo

27 February 2015
Issue: 7642 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Practice

Vringo Infrastructure Inc v ZTE (UK) Ltd [2015] EWHC 214 (Pat), [2015] All ER (D) 187 (Feb)

In earlier proceedings, judgment was handed down in respect of a patent concerning relocation of a protocol termination point in a mobile phone system (the patent), in which it was held that patent was valid and was essential to the relevant telecommunications standards. Prior to the order being sealed. The defendant company applied for permission to reopen the trial, to amend the pleadings to plead new prior art against the validity of the patent and to have a further trial about that new prior art. It sought an order suspending sealing of the order due to be made until the application was heard. The Patents Court, applying settled law, ruled that, in all the circumstances, the trial would not be re-opened. The order would be sealed and there would be no stay of patent trials fixed for June.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll