Intellectual Property Validity or IP validity meaning

Consider the nature of the IP right From a lender’s standpoint, use this checklist to pinpoint key points when taking IP as security and the steps to implement it... Identify the IP right and applicable law; patents, trade marks, registered designs and copyright can be mortgaged or charged... Select security: a legal mortgage (assignment plus redemption and exclusive licence‑back) offers stronger control than a fixed charge; for charges, restrict disposals and hold an executed undated assignment in escrow (verify foreign recognition)... Confirm ownership, term, existing security, licences and third‑party interests; demand warranties and title evidence, especially for unregistered rights... Assess validity and maintenance: search prior rights, check renewals and genuine use, monitor infringement, review litigation; obtain professional opinions where needed... Value the right and routes on default (licensing or sale); add complementary assets if required... Cover associated rights and materials: unregistered marks/goodwill (only with the business), unregistered designs, database right, know‑how/confidential information, domain names, and software/source code with escrow... Register...

Samsung Bioepis UK Ltd v Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc [2025] EWHC 1240 (Pat) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision delivers a clear warning to life sciences patent practitioners: exactitude in sequence‑defined claims is critical. Although the therapeutic product aligned with the invention’s aim, the presence of a non‑functional 22‑amino acid leader in the claimed light chain—absent from the mature eculizumab antibody—proved determinative. Alignment between product and concept could not cure the defect. The High Court refused a purposive reading that would excise the leader sequence, holding the claim wording unequivocal and the patent both invalid and not infringed. The ruling highlights the narrow scope for interpretative latitude. The court treated the language of the claim as pivotal, keeping its focus on the words actually chosen. It emphasised that “consisting of” expresses a closed definition, and that scientific terminology—especially expressly listed sequences—must be exact. It rejected Alexion’s submission that the skilled reader would read out the leader sequence due to possible interference with binding. As Mr...

In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents LexTalk®IP: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&As Useful information Trade marks/passing off McDonald’s loses EU Big Mac trade mark in respect of poultry products Following a judgment of the General Court, McDonald’s has lost its EU trade mark Big Mac for poultry products. The court found McDonald’s had not shown genuine use of the contested mark over a continuous five-year period for the goods ‘chicken sandwiches’, the goods ‘foods prepared from poultry products’ and the services ‘rendered or associated with operating restaurants and other establishments or facilities engaged in providing food and drink prepared for consumption and for drive-through facilities; preparation of carry-out foods’. The material provided gave no real indication of the extent of use of the mark for those goods and services, particularly with respect to sales volume, the duration of use,...

In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents IP and AI Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off Court of Appeal upholds validity of trade mark in counterclaim for invalid registration (Babek v Iceland Foods) In Babek International Ltd v Iceland Foods Ltd, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) rejected Iceland’s appeal from the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, which had refused Iceland’s counterclaim seeking a declaration that UK Registered trade mark No 00907527963, owned by Babek, had been invalidly registered. The sign at issue was a gold and black figurative mark. The appellate court examined compliance with the three distinct, cumulative criteria for registrability: it must be a sign; the sign must be capable of graphical representation; and it must be capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others. Although the judge at first instance wrongly applied a...

What design protection is available in the UK? Design rights safeguard the shape, configuration or appearance of the whole or any part of a product or article, rather than its functional features. The purpose of design law is to specifically deter others from making products that closely follow the design or otherwise produce the very same overall impression as the original design. The design rights currently available in the UK are as follows: namely UK registered designs (including re-registered designs and re-registered international designs) UK unregistered design right (also known as design right) Supplementary unregistered design right (SUD) Each of these rights differs in qualifying criteria, scope and the duration of protection. For more information, see Practice Note: Comparison tables for design protection available in the UK. Before Brexit, the UK designs regime was substantially harmonised with the EU regime then. The Designs Directive (Directive 98/71/EC) harmonised the requirements for national registered design protection across the EU. It was...

Introduction to patent proceedings In England and Wales, patent disputes sit within the civil jurisdiction of the courts, which apply the substantive statutory framework — the Patents Act 1977 (PA 1977), as amended — together with the common law, and decide cases in accordance with the procedural regime of England and Wales, as set out in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Actions for patent infringement are brought before the Patents Court or the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), both of which are part of the Business and Property Courts of the High Court (Chancery Division). The courts of England and Wales may grant remedies in patent matters at the pre-litigation stage, during proceedings, or on final disposal, and such relief may stem from powers granted by PA 1977, the common law, or by procedural rules. In awarding remedies, the courts must also observe Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of IP rights (the Enforcement Directive), to the extent that its requirements have been absorbed into the case law of the...

E&W Brussels I (recast)—exclusive jurisdiction (art 24) [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. It outlines Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I (recast)), which allocates exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of an EU Member State, irrespective of the defendant’s domicile or any conflicting party agreement. It addresses claims relating to: immovable property (Article 24(1)) a company’s constitution, corporate governance, and the validity of actions (Article 24(2)) public registry entries (Article 24(3)) intellectual property rights (Article 24(4)) all proceedings concerning the enforcement of judgments (Article 24(5)) The Note also considers how Article 24 applies to the UK as a non-EU Member State (a third state) following its departure from the EU, subject to transitional provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement. For general guidance on applying this article to third states, and on other provisions of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I (recast)) relevant to third states—Articles 18(1), 21(2), 25, 26, 33 and 34—see Practice...

Case No. [ insert claim number ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD) [ INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT (IPEC) OR PATENTS COURT ] BETWEEN: [ insert full name of claimant ] Claimant and [ insert full name of defendant ] Defendant REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM REPLY Preliminary Points Unless indicated otherwise, in this Reply and Defence to Counterclaim any paragraph references are to those in the Defence and Counterclaim. The Claimant contests the Defendant’s allegations and contentions in the Defence and Counterclaim in their entirety, except to the extent that they amount to admissions. The Claimant's Rights Registered Design Paragraph 5 is denied. The Registered Design is neither currently nor at any material time has been invalid for the reasons advanced in the Defence and Counterclaim [ and/or in the Grounds of Invalidity...

Claim No. [ insert claim number ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD) [ PATENTS COURT OR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT ] Between: [ insert name ] Claimant and [ insert name ] First Defendant/Part 20 Claimant [ insert name ] Second Defendant/Part 20 Claimant Defence and counterclaim Unless stated otherwise, all paragraph references are to the Particulars of Claim. The abbreviations employed in the Particulars of Claim are likewise used in this Defence and Counterclaim. The Defendant answers the substantive allegations set out below. The Defendant puts the Claimant to proof of any matter not expressly addressed within this Defence. The allegation at paragraph 3 is admitted. Paragraph 4 is denied. The validity of the Patent is denied. The Patent is, and at all material times has been, invalid for the reasons identified in the Grounds of Invalidity served with this...