Intellectual Property Law Case Analysis

This assignment requires students to critically analyze a selection of case laws related to intellectual property law. The cases cover diverse areas such as copyright infringement (IceTV v Nine), patent disputes (Shanks v Unilever, Sony Communication International AB v SSH Communications Security Corp.), and trademark litigation (FAPL v Luxton). Students must examine the legal arguments presented by each party, analyze the court's reasoning and decisions, and discuss the broader implications of these cases for intellectual property law.

International Intellectual
Law

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................10
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................11

INTRODUCTION
Intellectual property refers to creation of mind such as invention, literary and artistic
work, symbols, names and images used in business1. A law is designed to govern the creation,
protection, sharing and use of property all across the glob named as International Intellectual
Property Law. It has become an increasingly important and frequently litigated area in terms of
copyrights, patents, trademarks area. Intellectual property issues are addressed on an
international level through the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The
“Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organisation” was signed at
Stockholm in 1967 and come into force in the year 1970. This law deals with the rules for
securing and enforcing legal rights related to intangible property. International treatment of
intellectual property rights involves significant degree of traditional concern of international law
and private international law. In this project report detail information regarding International
Intellectual property law will be done. Together with this moral rights in this law will be
discussed and analysis of relevant cases on the topic is mentioned in this report.
MAIN BODY
International intellectual property law is a set of law that governs the creation, protection,
sharing and use of intellectual property from the global perspective. Intellectual property (IP) is
an intangible and non- physical property that is created through invention, design, idea or
creative work. Due to of its being non-physical in nature, it can be easily used in more than one
country. The IP laws may vary country to country and any matter arising in the IP can be
resolved through IP laws2. IP refers to any invention, discovery, creation or innovation. IP has to
be unique and must be protected. It can be in the forms of rights, patents, copyrights, trademarks,
trade secrets etc. The companies are going international by expanding their businesses therefore,
IP laws are necessary to protect the information about the organizations which can be accessed
by anyone with the use of internet. The entities that have gone globalized face difficulty
protecting their IP rights in international market because they lack the knowledge about how to
obtain, protect and enforce such rights in foreign countries. There are many things that
organizations can do to protect their IP such as consulting with a legal expert to implement IP
1 Brigham, E. F. and Houston, J. F., 2012. Fundamentals of financial management. Cengage Learning.
2 Sassen, S., 2016. The Global City: Strategic Site, New Frontier. In Managing Urban Futures (pp. 89-
104). Routledge.
1

protection strategy, forming comprehensive IP rights language, to conduct checks on the
background of prospective foreign partners, by obtaining and registering copyrights, patents and
trademarks in the foreign markets etc. Due to territorial nature trademarks and patents needs to
be registered in every country in which protection of intellectual property is required. To apply
for trademark in a particular country office of intellectual property needs to be contacted. WIPO
has contacted with all intellectual offices around the world. Process to applying for patents in
multiple countries is provided by Patent cooperation Treaty. Protection of intellectual property
can be taken in not more then 143 countries 3.
Intellectual property rights are given to personas over the creations of their minds. These
rights gives the creator and exclusive right over other person to use invention for certain period
of time. Intellectual property rights are divided into two main areas one is rights related to
copyrights and other one is industrial property. Copyrights of a author of literary and artistic
works such as writings, musical composition, paintings or any computer are protected for
minimum period of 50 years after their death. Also, copyright provides protection such as rights
of performance, producer of programmes or any broadcasting organisation. IP rights for
industrial property are segregated into two categories one is related to distinctive signs that is
related to trademark of business. This right is used to protect consumer by enabling them to
make a informed choice and also promotes fair competition. Other type of industrial property is
innovation, design and creation in technology. This helps in development of new and innovative
technology by providing them finance for research and development activities. Protection for
patents are given for finite term of 20 years in general cases.
As per WIPO, intellectual property shall include rights relating to literary, artistic,
scientific work and discoveries, performances of artists, programmes and broadcasts. These
rights also includes industrial designs, trademarks, services marked and designation,protection
against unfair competition 4. The WIPO promotes innovation and creativity for economic, social
and cultural development of all the countries. For this a balanced and effective international
intellectual property system is developed by the organisation. Mission of WIPO is to promote
through international corporation the creation, dissemination, use of protection of works of the
human mind for all kind of mankind. Place of WIPO has changed internationally in a great sense
3 Bently, L. and Sherman, B., 2014. Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, USA.
4 May, C., 2015. The global political economy of intellectual property rights: The new enclosures.
Routledge.
2

since the beginning, when it was created to serve states. This is one of the promoting
intergovernmental cooperation in regards for IP, activities of the organisation has expanded in
diverse areas in last few decades. Thus, WIPO is helping developing countries whose creativity
is yet to be harnessed 5. Organisation helps them to to receive full benefits of the creations of
citizens as well as those of the outside world. The World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO) is one the specialized agencies of the United Nations (UN) system of organizations.
There are many other organizations for international intellectual rights and the motive of WIPO
and other organizations is to promote innovation and creativity for the economic, social and
cultural development of all countries, through a balanced and effective international intellectual
property system.
Moral rights in context of intellectual property protection refers to the personal rights of a
creator to control, protect and enforce the artistic integrity that subsists in all manner of produced
IP works. Moral rights may attach to all manner of IP including literary, artistic, music, media
and drama work. Three main type of moral rights are right of attribution, right against false
attribution and right against derogatory treatment. Right of attribution means that an author or
creator of a work is entitled to assert their authorship in the work in any situation to utilise,
present, reproduce work. When various parties are involved in the process of creation then
finding ownership is complicated task. Author or creator is a person who brings the copyright
work into existence. Moral right against false attribution deals with the cases where no
authorship to a work is assigned to any person6. Any third person falsely deemed to be the
creator of another's work. Under this condition true owner of the innovation has right of redress
against the third person who is responsible for this false representation. Right against derogatory
treatment in moral rights are generalised to serve two main functions. One is to protect artistic
integrity in work and to protect artistic integrity as a person. Derogatory treatment includes any
act or commission which materially destroys or mutilates work of artist that negatively impact
reputation or honer. Moral rights are automatic and subsists in all copyrights material. Moral
rights are personal to the creator and they can not be transferred, licensed, assigned or disposed
off in any manner. An creator or person who invented can permit another not to attribute or to
5 Brunia, C.H., van Boxtel, G.J. and Böcker, K.B., 2012. Negative slow waves as indices of anticipation:
the Bereitschaftspotential, the contingent negative variation, and the stimulus-preceding negativity. In
The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components.
6 Frankel, S., 2016. Interpreting the Overlap of International Investment and Intellectual Property Law.
Journal of International Economic Law. 19(1). pp.121-143.
3

attribute work. Another person can also be instructed to reproduce, modify or to alter the work.
Moral rights are held by author or creator of copyright work and always stays with them. Sale or
assignment of the copyright in a work does not affect the authors moral rights, as they remains
continue with the author.
At an international level for protection of literary and artistic works requires to grant
authors right regarding claiming authorship of a work which is created by them. Also creator has
right to make any modification to work done that harms others or provide negative impact on
general public7. Laws in one nation differs from another, but transfer and waiver of moral rights
are not allowed as per law of any nation. Moral rights of a creator also includes that decision to
disclose or not to disclose the invention to public will be taken by creator only. In civil law, and
common law system, economic rights and moral rights are considered as two sides of same coin.
Intellectual property rights are considered as most valuable assets for every business.
These rights are important because they sets business apart from that of the competitors and this
provides competitive advantage. Having a copyright, patent provides opportunities to exclusive
user and adding some speciality in business by providing more innovative products and services.
Selling these rights provides revenue to business that makes business financially sound. Leasing
of IP brings revenue on regular basis. When a new product is introduced which is different from
the existing then it will leads to more profits by increased sales to organisation. Intellectual
property rights are considered as essential part of marketing for establishing a brand name. In
today's world business of an organisation is not limited to geographical boundaries. Growing
businesses at global level makes it essential to make each IP right registered in each country in
which business is performed. Having IP rights registered all over the world provides security that
no one can take credit of invention that does not belongs to them. Having strong domestic and
international protection of intellectual property is crucial to success in marketplace of the
relevant country. Intellectual property rights are a grant made by the government to individual or
group of person to have exclusive legal rights to use a copy right, patent for a specific period of
time. International exploration of rights are important and crucial for trade, foreign direct
investment and technology licensing across nations. IP rights generates a significant expansion
of the required minimum standards in the developing countries8.
7 Bridy, A., 2012. Copyright policymaking as procedural democratic process: A discourse-theoretic
perspective on acta, sopa, and pipa. Cardozo Arts & Ent. LJ. 30. p.153.
4

In 1983, the first international property treaty guaranteeing that in each country, foreign
trademarks and patent will receive same treatment and priority as those from domestic
applicants. Giving importance to intellectual property helps in promotion of investment in
knowledge, creation and business innovation9. Award of exclusive rights to use and sell newly
developed technologies, goods and services promotes knowledge holder to a place where it can
be utilised in batter manner. It must be taken care that an overly protective IP system will limit
the social gains from invention by reducing incentive to disseminate its fruit value an overly
week system could reduced innovation by failing to provide adequate returns that are expected
from an innovation. A balance must be provided in IP rights system. It seems that strengthening
IP rules is capable to increase and decrease economic growth of a country. It is seen that when
patents are united with openness to trade, research indicates that it will leads to rapid economic
growth. This is because in an open economy more competition, large amount of Foreign Direct
Investment will be made. This will help to acquire technologies to rise product quality and
ultimately in growth of a country.
Moral rights provides personal rights to an individual and when violation of moral rights
in relation to intellectual property rights is performed various issues are faced by the company.
One of the basic issue that is vary common is using moral rights of an employees during
employment and after retirement dispute arises regarding payments for usage of these rights.
Companies have copyrights for performing various services and if violation of any rule that is
required to possess that copyrights leads to violation of law and penalties are imposed for this.
Fragmentation of copyrights is very common because many of the times they are not registered
or after making a small modification they are considered as new and different moral rights.
Registration of intellectual property rights are done for a specific period of time and ignorance of
this time period at the time of sale and purchase of these rights creates disputes between
businesses. Format of using intellectual property rights are changed and used by businesses to
provide various different services this creates a issue of copying of rights in businesses. Use of
patents and copy rights are restricted by the owners that posses these rights. In case when rights
are leased or sold to other person then use of these rights can not be restricted by the initial
8 A’Hearn, B. and Venables, A. J., 2013. Regional disparities: internal geography and external trade. In
The Oxford handbook of the Italian economy since Unification.
9 Pila, J. and Torremans, P., 2016. European intellectual property law. Oxford University Press.
5

owner of these rights. Instead of this usage of copyrights will be controlled by purchaser of the
rights. These are the issues that are related to the business and various case laws are considered
to provided solutions to these issues.
To understand importance moral rights in International Intellectual Property Rights
various cases in past years needs to be considered that will reflect that how this law helps to
make a court judgement. In case of “Shanks v. Unilever” claim was made against Unilever plc
by an ex employee Professor Shanks10. A patent that was invented by Professor Shanks during
his employment is used by the company on continuous basis in consideration of money. It was
claimed by Professor Shanks that company should provide him as fair share in profits at least 33
percent. Unilever argumented that profits of the company for the year is £24.5m but that will be
discounted by 30 percent of to reflect the amount of corporate tax during the relevant period.
This reduce the benefits of Unilever to £17m. In this case judge has concluded that it has been
necessary to calculate fair profits of the company to calculate share of Professor Shanks that can
not be more then 3 per cent. After receiving this judgement permission was granteede by Floyd
LJ for making second appeal on the basis that is raises important issues of principal in relation to
how benefits should be calculated. Professor Shanks challenges the decision of the Hearing
officers that the patents did not confer the outstanding benefits and requested an allowance for
time value of money. He contends that a fair share of the benefit to Unilever would be at least 33
per cent rather then 5 per cent which hearing officer would have awarded. In response to notice
of Professor Shanks company also added a point of appeal that net amount of fair benefits £17m
will also be reduced with £1.75m as development cost. In final judgement it was obtained that
value of fair benefits will be concluded as £24.5m. It was also mentioned that cost incurred by
Unilever in the process of development of patents that was required to maintain license will be
considered £25000m. It was also concluded the Shanks will receive only 5 per cent of the fair
benefits for his contribution in innovation for the company.
In another case of FAPL v. Luxton issue was related to copyright infringement against a
publication who had shown premier league football matches in his pub using a satellite. Card of
satellite decoder was imported by another person who was member of state but the card was
issued to use domestically. The appellant argued that he was in effect compelled to use a
10 Shanks v Unilever case law. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.8newsquare.co.uk/cases/346/Shanks+-v-+Unilever.html>.
6

domestic only satellite card in order to receive the broadcast containing the premier league
matches11. This was unlawful to use domestic card in public area as agreement between the
claimant FAPL and its members. It was held that it was not lawful to use the domestic card
publicly.
In the case of “Parainen Pearl Shipping & Ord v Kristian Gerhard Jebsen Skipsrederi
(2018)” the claimants, Tom Moody-Stuart QC and Lindsay Lane appeared for their claim for a
declaration of infringement of a patent for a pneumatic cement discharge system and James QC,
and Kathryn Pickard were the defendants12. The claimants own a vessel which is a pneumatic
cement discharge system in accordance with the first defendant's patent. The previous owner of
the vessel was the second defendant but the vessel was wrecked in 2008. This was a complete
constructive loss and was subsequently sold to two undertakings before it was acquired by the
claimants. Due to this, the claimants argued that defendants' patent rights were exhausted.
On the other hand, the claimants did not raise a question that the discharge system fell
within the patent and did not dispute on the patent's validity. The case instead shifted to the
nature of work done to make the discharge system usable again after its extensive flooding. The
Defendants argued that the previous system was destroyed and a new system had been
manufactured by the claimants. Claimants contended that it has not been manufactured and just
been repaired. The court gave its judgement in the favour of claimants on the ground that
defendants' patent rights had been exhausted when the vessel was sold and the work done on the
vessel was purely a repair and not manufacture. Some of the system's components had been
replaced but that amounted to subsidiary rather than substantial components.
In the case of “Technomed Ltd. V Bluecrest Health Screening Ltd.” in this case
Technomed (claimants) filed a case for infringement of database right and various copyrights
against Bluecrest and Express (defendants)13. There was a contract executed by the defendants
with the claimants for the providing the heart screening services, by using the Technomed's
Electrocardiogram (ECG) analysis and reporting system (known as the ECG Cloud). This system
11 FAPL v Luxton. 2016. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.8newsquare.co.uk/cases/345/FAPL+v+Luxton.html>.
12 Parainen Peral v Kristian case law. 2018. [Online]. Available
through:<http://www.8newsquare.co.uk/cases/391/Parainen+Pearl+Shipping+
%26+Ors+v+Kristian+Gerhard+Jebsen+Skipsrederi+%5B2018%5D+EWHC+2628+%28Pat%29.html>.
13 Technomed Ltd. V Bluecrest Health Screening Ltd. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.8newsquare.co.uk/cases/363/Technomed+Ltd+
+v+Bluecrest+Health+Screening+Ltd+.html>.
7

enable the patients EGC's to be analysed even from a distance and risk was arranged in strata and
generation of reports explaining the analysis to patients. After some time, Bluecrest has entered
into a contract with Express for providing similar services. The claims made by Technomed was
that analysis and reports supplied by Express infringed database right and copyright in the
explanatory text and diagrams used in the reports generated by ECG Cloud as well as in the
XML format used to transmit the contents of those reports.
The judge allegation made by Technomed was correct. In order to produce reports the
defendants had copied a pdf version of the collection of information underlying ECG cloud and
as a result, infringed Technomed's database right and copyright in its database. The defendants
infringed Technomed's copyright in both literary and artistic content used in the reports, as we as
the XML format, by using these in their own reports. The judge held that use of literary and
artistic content was a brach of Technomed;s copyright for the purposes of any subsequent claim
for additional damages.
In the case of “IceTV Pty Ltd. V Nine Network Australia Pty. Ltd. (2009)” the High
Court of Australia passed a decision in favour of IceTV Pty Limited (claimant) in the case of its
copyright dispute with Nine Network Pty Limited (defendant)14. This case is a landmark case on
Australian copyright law. The facts of the case are that the claimant produced an electronic
program guide called EPG. This program was formed to provide service to the subscribers with a
weekly and daily television guide for free-to-air digital television. The claimant developed this
program on an observation conducted for over 3 week period and used the observations to
predict the particular television program to be broadcast weekly. The previous week's guide was
used to predict the program to be broadcast in the coming weeks and at what time. IceTV
gathered the episode information and program from various sources such as official website. The
defendant alleged that the claimant has infringed its copyright. Nine argued that it owned
copyright in its own weekly television programming schedules (the weekly schedules) and that
IceTV has infringed its copyright in those weekly schedule by reproducing a substantial part of
them, as the content of time and title information for the shows that were scheduled to be
broadcast, without taking permission from Nine.
14 IceTV v Nine. 2009. [Online]. Available through:
<https://dcc.com/services/litigation-dispute-resolution/channel-nines-copyright-case-against-icetv-goes-
to-water/>.
8

The High Court provided that copyright law is not designed to protect the facts, but it
should be used to protect the way in which those facts are expressed. The facts of the case were
the pieces of the program time and title information that was obtained by IceTV from the
published television guide. And the expression in regard to those facts was the arrangement of
that information into Nine's weekly schedules in a consecutive and chronological order. The
court was asked to consider whether the IceTV has used the information about the time and title
from the Published Television Guides to improve the accuracy of the IceGuide by taking a
substantial part of Nine's weekly schedules. If a substantial part has not been taken, there could
be no copyright, there could be no infringement.
In the case of “Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing
Company et. al.,” Universal Film Manufacturing Company (defendant) denied the validity of
Motion Picture Patents Company's (Plaintiff) patent, denied infringement and claimed an
implied license to use the patented machine without the restrictions imposed by the terms of the
patent owner in a notice that has been put by him on the machine15. When Motion Picture Patents
Company (MPPC) (plaintiff), the user of a patent, granted the right and a license to manufacture
and sell machines containing the invention described in the patent in the case. That means, a
mechanism for feeding film through a motion picture projector, plaintiff attached a notice to
each machine to restrict the use of the motion picture machines by the purchaser or by the lessee
of the purchaser and any such transaction will be done at plaintiff's discretion. The intention of
the notice was to limit the use of film supplies and the sale price and not to restrict the use of
machine itself. The defendant argued that the owner's rights to control the materials to be used in
the operations of machine could not be used in operating the machine could not be protected by
the patent law, thus, notice was invalid.
The judgement of this case law is based on the rule that exclusive right granted in every
patent must be limited to the invention describes in the claims of the patent. It is not allowed for
the owner to extend the scope of its patent monopoly by restricting the use of it to materials
necessary in its operation that are not part of the patented invention.
15 Motion Picture v Universal Film. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/intellectual-property-law/intellectual-property-keyed-to-merges/
patent-law-intellectual-property-keyed-to-merges/motion-picture-patents-company-v-universal-film-
manufacturing-company-et-al/>.
9

In the case of “Sony Communication International AB v SSH Communications Security
Corp” the case was that the patent in the case law was owned by SSH and related to the
'keepalive' packages of data when exchanging information between private and public networks
through a Network Address Translation (NAT) system. Sony sued for revocation of the patent on
the grounds that it was obvious over both common general knowledge and the prior art. SSH
applied to change the patent and counter claimed for infringement by Sony16. It was held that
relevant claims of the patent were either disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art, therefore,
the patent was invalid. The proposed amendment were not allowed as it did not cure the finding.
The patent was invalid but it was further held that claims in the case were valid and they would
have been infringed by the internet Calling functionality of Sony's Xperia mobile phones.
In the case of, “Wobben v Siemens (2015)” the case was about the infringement and
validity of Wobben's (plaintiff) patent concerning the operation of variable speed, variable pitch
with turbines at high wind speeds. Siemens (defendants) denied the allegation and claimed the
patent was invalid. It was found that patent was invalid for lack of inventive step, but not
novelty. The judge found that if the patent was valid, the patent would not have been infringed.
Siemens' system did not reduce the rotor speed in accordance with the rise in the wind speed17.
The companies operating in multiple countries has to take references from the case laws
of the country in which it is setting its business or is carrying its operations. In case of matter of
any disputes in the IP the disputes should be resolved by using the judgements passed by the
court of that country in which the company is operating. In case of multinational companies, it
has to register its various intellectual property rights for protecting it from its misuse.
Registration provides a base for filing a suit in cases of infringement of the rights. Furthermore,
the companies complying with the respective IP laws increase its worthiness among its
customers and government. It is necessary for each and every company to carry its business with
the IP laws. These are the intangible assets of the company, therefore should be protected
otherwise company may face a situation of financial distress.
16 Sony Communication International AB v SSH Communications Security Corp. 2016. [Online]. Available
through: <http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/
2016/2584.html&query=(Sony)+AND+(v)+AND+(SSH)>
17 Wobben v Siemens. 2015. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.8newsquare.co.uk/cases/307/Wobben+v+Siemens+%5B2015%5D+EWHC+2114+%28Pat
%29.html>
10

CONCLUSION
From the above report, it has been concluded that, intellectual property rights are the
intangible property which should be protected. The companies going global have to comply with
the intellectual property law in the country in which it is operating. Company will lose its rights
if it does not comply the IP laws of a particular country. Further, the entities should hire the
expert for taking care of its IP matters. The disputes arising in IP will be resolved with the
judgement passed in the previous cases. Further, the companies should take help from the
various organizations that have been constituted with a view to promote IP and provide a
centralised system for future reference.
11

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Brigham, E. F. and Houston, J. F., 2012. Fundamentals of financial management. Cengage
Learning.
Sassen, S., 2016. The Global City: Strategic Site, New Frontier. In Managing Urban Futures v
(pp. 89-104). Routledge.
Bently, L. and Sherman, B., 2014. Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, USA.
May, C., 2015. The global political economy of intellectual property rights: The new enclosures.
Routledge.
Brunia, C. H., van Boxtel, G. J. and Böcker, K. B., 2012. Negative slow waves as indices of
anticipation: the Bereitschaftspotential, the contingent negative variation, and the
stimulus-preceding negativity. In The Oxford handbook of event-related potential
components.
Frankel, S., 2016. Interpreting the Overlap of International Investment and Intellectual Property
Law. Journal of International Economic Law. 19(1). pp.121-143.
A’Hearn, B. and Venables, A. J., 2013. Regional disparities: internal geography and external
trade. In The Oxford handbook of the Italian economy since Unification.
Bridy, A., 2012. Copyright policymaking as procedural democratic process: A discourse-
theoretic perspective on acta, sopa, and pipa. Cardozo Arts & Ent. LJ. 30. p.153.
Pila, J. and Torremans, P., 2016. European intellectual property law. Oxford University Press.
Online
Moral rights. 2019. [Online]. Available through: <https://legalvision.com.au/what-are-moral-
rights/>.
Shanks v Unilever case law. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.8newsquare.co.uk/cases/346/Shanks+-v-+Unilever.html>.
Parainen Peral v Kristian case law. 2018. [Online]. Available
through:<http://www.8newsquare.co.uk/cases/391/Parainen+Pearl+Shipping+
%26+Ors+v+Kristian+Gerhard+Jebsen+Skipsrederi+%5B2018%5D+EWHC+2628+
%28Pat%29.html>.
Technomed Ltd. V Bluecrest Health Screening Ltd. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.8newsquare.co.uk/cases/363/Technomed+Ltd+
+v+Bluecrest+Health+Screening+Ltd+.html>.
IceTV v Nine. 2009. [Online]. Available through: <https://dcc.com/services/litigation-dispute-
resolution/channel-nines-copyright-case-against-icetv-goes-to-water/>.
Motion Picture v Universal Film. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/intellectual-property-law/intellectual-property-
keyed-to-merges/patent-law-intellectual-property-keyed-to-merges/motion-picture-
patents-company-v-universal-film-manufacturing-company-et-al/>.
Wobben v Siemens. 2015. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.8newsquare.co.uk/cases/307/Wobben+v+Siemens+
%5B2015%5D+EWHC+2114+%28Pat%29.html>.
12

FAPL v Luxton. 2016. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.8newsquare.co.uk/cases/345/FAPL+v+Luxton.html>.
Sony Communication International AB v SSH Communications Security Corp. 2016. [Online].
Available through:
<http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/
2016/2584.html&query=(Sony)+AND+(v)+AND+(SSH)>
13