Peter Adediran’s specialist niche area of practice is copyright, trademark and patent disputes and protection relating to digital media including websites and mobile applications PAIL Solicitors. Read more on PAIL’s Resource Library or keep up with the firm on Facebook.
The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) is a specialist list of the Intellectual Property List (Chancery Division) which is meant for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The idea is to provide quick affordable access to justice for SMEs. The Intellectual Property List includes three sub-lists: Intellectual Property, Patents Court and the IPEC, and is part of the Business and Property Courts of the High Court. A Part 36 offer is the same whether used in intellectual property or any other type of commercial litigation except that there are different costs rules in IPEC. HM Courts & Tribunals Service provide a detailed guide for businesses, and legal practitioners online on how to take a case to IPEC.
Although this article relates primarily to mobile apps the solutions it proposes apply to websites and any other digital platform through which you make your online platform and applications available including for mobile, tablet and other smart devices and application program interfaces.
If you still believe in mobile apps as a great business idea for generating revenue, then you may be on to something. Mobile apps may not be as hot today as cryptocurrency; blockchain; AI; drones and other new technologies, but global app revenue increased by 35% in 2017 to almost $60 billion based on Apple’s App Store and Google Play revenues alone, according to a report released on 05 January 2018 from Sensor Tower..
How to defend digital copyright claims (what claimants and defendants can learn)?
The author is a UK qualified and fully licensed current practicing solicitor specialising in intellectual property cases and digital technology. His book A Business Guide to Business Law and the Internet published in 2002 has a whole chapter dedicated to Internet related copyright
The author is a UK qualified and fully licensed current practicing solicitor specialising in intellectual property cases and digital technology. He is currently a Judicial Work Shadow Candidate for the Intellectual Property Tribunal
What is corporate veil?
The general legal rule for copyright infringement liability is that a company is a separate legal person from its directors. Generally, an act of the company is not necessarily an act of its directors personally. This is the case no matter how small the company is or how much the directors micro-manage the affairs of the company. As a separate legal entity, the private limited liability company is solely responsible for its liabilities and debts – the so called “corporate veil principle”.
This article sets out an overview of running an intellectual property dispute in England, it considers the initial matters that should be dealt with and forming a clear strategy from the outset as how to run the litigation.
Risks/Benefits analysis of litigating?
1. The first thing to consider is whether the proposed defendant has the financial means to pay legal costs and/or damages if your proposed litigation is successful.
IPEC is a court forum designed to make it cheaper faster and simpler to dispense with intellectual property cases for SMEs’. The costs are capped at £50,000.00 and the value of cases are capped at £500,000.00 although this can be waived. Note also that the costs cap of £50,000.00 can be waived where there is a part 36 offer – PPL v Hagan  EWHC 3076 (IPEC) (30 November 2016).
Website copyright infringement is one of our specialisations within the specialisation of copyright law. I’ll come back to what this first sentence means shortly.
This article is a brief discussion on the specialist area of website copyright infringement. To a non-practitioner the area of intellectual property law can be confusing. Different fields of intellectual property such as trademarks, copyright, patents, design rights, are specialist areas of practice. Additional specialisation is necessary in a particular field. Within copyright law specialisation in certain commercial fields is desirable to build up skills and practical knowledge in that specific field.
Copyright in logos was considered recently by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court. Once again IPEC has contributed another very helpful decision to English law for businesses related to the Internet by way of another judgment from His Honour Judge Richard Hacon.
The case is Atelier Eighty Two Limited and Klinworx Climbing Centre CIC and 2 other defendants  EWHC 2291 (IPEC).
The dispute was about ownership of copyright in logos but it affects all creative design and development work including website design and development.
Copyright assignment agreements or licences are routine in Internet business but they can be one of the more difficult aspects of a copyright infringement case for an intellectual property lawyer to prosecute. There are many other issues that can quickly become tricky such as what works are being relied upon as infringed, what rights are granted and being alleged as infringed, who made them exactly, when and in what circumstances where they made,
Copyright infringement is the subject matter of this article. Certain comments by Newey J, further to an application brought by the claimant in the case below are of interest to those who specialise in copyright matters. In giving judgment he commented that a copyright infringer was more akin to a trespasser than a thief. It is of some general interest because the words – “theft” , “piracy” and “stealing” are commonly used when referring to copyright infringement. So despite this being a slightly dated Judgment, taking place at the beginning of this year, for copyright infringement enthusiasts everywhere, I decided to review the case.