Latest Cases

Patent – Validity. The Patents Court considered challenges to the legitimacy of a patent for a treatment of asthma. It held that a challenge to the patent based on anticipation would be dismissed. However, a challenge to the patent on grounds of obviousness was made out and the patent was therefore invalid. A number of amended claims put forward by the owner of the patent would be rejected. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks & Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Arisa Assurances SA and Argo Group International Holdings Ltd (Argo) relating to the application by Argo's predecessor for registration of a figurative sign 'ARIS' as a Community trade mark. 

Education – Higher education. The claimant, who had discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom, was ineligible for a student loan as a result of her immigration status. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant Secretary of State's appeal, found that the defendant Secretary of State had adopted a lawful bright line rule in formulating the 'basic category' of eligible students given in para 2 of pt 2 of Sch 1 to the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011. 

Court of Appeal – Leave to appeal. Following the claimant's success at first instance, the defendant sought permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, imposed conditions on the defendant's application and ordered it to pay security for costs. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant, from Pakistan, obtained entry clearance as Tier 4 (General) student until May 2012 to undertake a course, which was subject to the condition, pursuant to s 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1977, prohibiting him from studying at an institution other than the sponsor body. The claimant left the sponsor body and completed his education at another institution. He was subsequently accepted onto a further study course at another institution, to commence July 2012, and applied for further leave to remain. The defendant Secretary of State refused his application and the claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the condition was valid and the claimant was plainly in breach of it. Further, the Secretary of State had not acted unfairly in refusing the application. 

Value added tax – Supply of goods and services. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal brought by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) in which the FTT had decided that certain dog foods sold by Roger Skinner Ltd were zero-rated as 'animal feeding stuffs' within Sch 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. The tribunal decided that on the evidence, the FTT had been entitled to take the view that none of the products in dispute had been 'meal for ... dogs' and consequently did not fall within the excepted items in Group 1 of Sch 8 to the Act which were standard-rated. 

Human rights – Inhuman or degrading treatment. The respondent judicial authority sought the appellant's return to Romania to serve a three-year sentence, which could potentially be served in the third most over-crowded Romanian prison. The senior district judge ordered the appellant's surrender to Romania and the appellant appealed. The Divisional Court ruled that to return a prisoner to serve three years in a collective cell where the personal space was approximately 1.5 metres would amount to a violation of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Costs – Assessment. The Technology and Construction Court held that the appropriate order was that the claimant should pay the defendant its costs, to be assessed on a standard basis, if not agreed, without any reduction for a failure on the part of the defendant to mediate. 

Mental health – Human rights. Court of Session: Allowing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings by a patient who was detained indefinitely in the State Hospital, challenging a decision to implement a comprehensive ban on smoking there, the court held that the Lord Ordinary had erred in holding that the respondents did not have the power to implement the prohibition on smoking under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, and in holding that art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged, or, if it was, that there had been disproportionate interference with the petitioner's rights. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant brought proceedings against various defendants, including Siemens Public Ltd Company, alleging infringement a patent concerning a method of operating a pitch-controlled wind turbine. The claimant applied for an order that Siemens provide it with, among other things, information as to its customers within the jurisdiction of the court. The Patents Court held that the balance of justice was in favour of making a Norwich Pharmacal order for disclosure.