IP litigation can be both technically and legally complex, and involve some of the most valuable assets of a business. It is often multi-jurisdictional, which brings additional challenges.
As a firm of specialist solicitors and intellectual property attorneys, we are able to combine the complementary skills of both professions to provide clients with a first-class and cost-effective service to resolve their patent, design, trade mark, copyright, unfair competition and other IP-related disputes (such as those involving confidential information). We are accustomed to acting for rights holders as well as alleged infringers, in relation to infringement and invalidity actions, as well as actions for declaratory relief.
European litigation expertise
Our solicitors, rechtsanwälte, patent attorneys and trade mark attorneys have extensive expertise in acting in disputes and litigation in relation to the full range of IP rights (be it patents, supplementary protection certificates, trade marks, designs, copyright or confidential information).
We handle UK cases cases in the High Court (Chancery Division), the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) and UK Intellectual Property Office.
In Germany we are experienced in representing clients in the German infringement courts in first instance and appellate proceedings, the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) and the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt).
Multi-jurisdictional litigation management
We are experienced in advising clients in, and co-ordinating, multi-jurisdictional disputes involving courts in Europe, Asia and the United States. We work with and manage local advisers in the context of IP matters and have good relationships with a number of excellent firms around the world. We are also experienced in handling IP issues in an international arbitration context.
Technical experience
Our technical expertise spans all industry sectors including biotechnology, chemistry, pharmaceuticals, business and finance, creative, entertainment, hospitality and media, consumer, luxury and fashion goods, electronic and electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, computer technology and physics.
World Trademark Review Trademark Litigation 2022: A Global Guide
The D Young & Co litigation team have written the UK chapter of the World Trademark Review "Trademark Litigation: A Global Guide 2022". The guide is a simple, easy-to-use digest of the fundamentals of litigation practice in key jurisdictions. The guide can be viewed in full using the link below.
TM litigation guideCases we have been involved in include
Biotechnology, chemistry & pharmaceuticals
- Allied Colloids v American Cyanamid(polymer chemistry)
- Arrow v Akzo Nobel/Organon (polymorphism)
- GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals v Novartis(meningococcal vaccines)
- Intervet v Merial (porcine circovirus 2 vaccine)
- Lubrizol v Esso Petroleum (lubricant additives)
- Mylan and Glenmark v The WellcomeFoundation (malaria combination therapy)
- Omnipharm v Merial (spot-onflea treatment formulation)
- The Procter & Gamble Companyv Lever Brothers (detergents)
- Tercica and Genentech v Insmed(insulin-like growth factor binding protein)
Consumer, luxury & fashion goods
- 3M v International Applications (counterfeit goods)
- Aston Martin Lagonda v Envisage Group (breach of confidence)
- Birds Eye v Green Isle & Northern Foods (comparative advertising)
- GO Outdoors v Skechers (trade mark registrability)
- McNeil v EUIPO (trade mark registrability)
- O2 v Hutchinson 3G UK (trade mark infringement)
- Pentland Brands v Skechers (designs, copyright and trade mark infringement)
- Rolex v Zaffar (counterfeits)
- Skechers v Tesco (designs and copyright infringement)
- Unilever v Morris & Son (parallel imports)
- WIPO Arbitration (trade mark coexistence agreement)
Creative, entertainment, hospitality & media
- Turner Broadcasting v Boomerang TV (threats; trade mark infringement)
- Marriott v EUIPO (trade mark registrability)
- The Cartoon Network v EUIPO (trade mark registrability)
Electronics, engineering & IT
- HTC v Access (Android operating system)
- ICC Arbitration (nanotechnology licence)
- Intel v UMC (microprocessors)
- InterDigital v Nokia (2G & 3G)
- Kimberly-Clark v The Procter & Gamble Company (disposable diapers)
- LG Electronics v Access (Android operating system)
- Philips v LG (digital image encoding)
- Seoul Semiconductor v Everlight (light emitting diodes)
- Sony v SSH (network address translators)
- Tangle Teezer v GB Kent & Sons (hair brushes)
- The Procter & Gamble Company v Peaudouce (disposable diapers)
- Triumph Actuation Systems v Aeroquip Vickers (aircraft power transfer units)
- Tyco v Tomy (magnetic image displays)
- Virgin Atlantic Airways v Zodiac (aircraft seats)
- VPG v Airweigh (vehicle weighing system)
- Windsurfing v Tabur Marine (windsurfers)
Unified Patent Court
We have been closely involved in the development of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) such that we are intimately familiar with its framework, procedures and jurisdictional arrangements. When it comes into being, patent litigation in the Unified Patent Court will place a strong emphasis on written technical statements of case along with important evidential requirements and procedures.
We will be able to offer a broad choice and availability of representation in all divisions of the UPC and our solicitors and patent attorneys are particularly well placed to assist clients in this new European patent litigation forum.
Read more
