Patent infringement A patent or published patent application is infringed if certain acts are performed in the UK without the consent of the patent proprietor or patent applicant. The acts in question, where the invention is a product, are set out in section 60(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 (PA 1977), and include making, disposing of, offering to dispose of, using or importing the product or keeping the product whether for disposal or otherwise. The meaning of keeping the product, whether for disposal or otherwise, has been interpreted very narrowly by the courts and does not cover mere possession of a product or simply purchasing a product. In Smith Kline & French v RD Harbottle [1980] RPC 363 (not reported by LexisNexis®), it was held that it means keeping in stock, an approach which was followed by the Court of Appeal in McDonald v Graham. For

A lease grants an interest in property. It is quite usual, however, for the lease to impose restrictions upon the use to which the property might be put and also the extent to which the tenant might grant other people a right to be in the premises or to assign the lease. Often these will be two distinct matters. A covenant, for example, which provides that the premises can only be used for the trade of car mechanic will not be breached by the tenant granting a sub-demise to another car mechanic. Although the covenant against alienation would be breached, the user clause would not be. In contrast, the present case demonstrates how a given state of affairs will possibly breach both sets of covenants. Although the lodger may not have a tenancy such that a sub-demise occurs, his or her presence might breach a covenant which prohibits a sharing of occupation of the premises. Although the

The interpretation of a covenant will always depend upon the factual context. In the context of freehold restrictive covenants, in the textbook 'Restrictive Covenants and Freehold Land: A Practitioners Guide', Andrew Francis, the construction of restrictive covenants is outlined, and specifically makes the point at paragraph 14.83 that reference to a ‘single private residence’ or other variants of the phrase suggests an exclusion of multiple occupation. In the case of Moore v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the description of dwelling house was discussed, in particular how the relationship of the residents could affect the interpretation of the definition of ‘dwellinghouses’ under Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (UCO 1987), SI 1987/764, Sch. Although ‘family units’ were using the

The content of statutory demands against companies is prescribed by rule 7.3 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024. The provision to which the question refers reads as follows: ‘(2) The following must be separately identified in the demand (if claimed) with the amount or rate of the charge and the grounds on which payment is claimed- (a) Any charge by way of interest of which notice had not previously been delivered to the company as included in its liability; and (b) Any other charge accruing from time to time.’ The requirement for statutory demands to comply with the provisions of this rule is

If the lease states that the flat can only be used as a private residential property, then it would be a breach of the lease to use the property for holiday lettings. A residential dwelling is meant to be one which is designed as a dwelling or number of dwellings and is intended for use solely for residential purposes. The issue of whether a holiday letting could be classed as use for residential purposes was considered in the case of Caradon District Council v Paton and Bussell. Caradon District Council had applied for an injunction to restrain the defendants from letting their properties through short term lets to holidaymakers. The properties had originally been purchased from the council under the right to buy schemes, and they remained subject to covenants

This Q&A raises the scope of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) in the context of the creation of interests in or over land. EqA 2010 creates nine protected characteristics in respect of which it imposes restrictions upon the manner in which they can be dealt. They are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation (EqA 2010, s 4). There is no definition of age or age group. The notion of age is broad enough to encompass, for example, those above a certain age, those between two ages or those in a particular decade of their life. In respect of each characteristic, EqA 2010 places restrictions upon both direct and indirect discrimination. As regards direct discrimination, a person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because

The essence of employment is pay in return for work. There is a duty to pay wages whenever an employee is ready, willing and able to work. Generally, it does not matter whether there is any work for them to do. As Lord Templeman put it in Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council: 'In a contract of employment wages and work go together. The employer pays for work and the worker works for his wages. If the employer declines to pay, the worker need not work. If the worker declines to work, the employer need not pay. In an action by a worker to recover his pay he must allege and be ready to prove that he worked

Corporate governance best practice at present is that 'malus and clawback' are only relevant to awards held by senior management and other executives who are 'material risk takers'. Therefore, malus and clawback provisions tend only to be included in executive or discretionary share incentive plans, and are not usually applied in relation to all-employee arrangements (such as save as you earn (SAYE) schemes). Looking at SAYE schemes specifically, there is nothing in the SAYE legislation which expressly prevents an SAYE option from being subject to malus or clawback. However, we are aware that HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has

The issue of vaccinating staff, who work with vulnerable people, against coronavirus (COVID-19), is particularly relevant following the approval of vaccinations and the prioritisation of such staff. Although section 45B of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (PH(CD)A 1984) allows for regulations to make provision, among other things, for the medical examination, detention, isolation or quarantine of persons, and PH(CD)A 1984, s 45C allows for regulations for the purpose of preventing, protecting against, controlling or providing a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection, PH(CD)A 1984, s 45E specifically prevents the inclusion of provisions requiring a person to undergo medical treatment, including vaccination and other prophylactic treatment. It is therefore not permitted for the government to require individuals to be vaccinated. Likewise, there is no provision that allows an employer to compel an employee to be vaccinated,

In considering the first part, which relates to the payment of the mortgage (which is provided for by section 13(5) of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996)) for the occupation by a beneficiary of a property subject to a trust of land, the other relevant subparagraphs of TOLATA 1996, s 13 are: ‘(3) The trustees of land may from time to time impose reasonable conditions on any beneficiary in relation to his occupation of land by reason of his entitlement under section 12. (4) The matters to which trustees are to have regard in exercising the powers conferred by this section include— (a) the intentions of the person or persons (if any) who created the trust, (b) the purposes for which the land is held, and (c)

Since the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 (LT(C)A 1995) in relation to all new tenancies post 1 January 1996 the original tenant will be released from liabilities under covenants in the lease following an assignment. Nothing in the LT(C)A 1995, however, precludes the tenant from entering into an authorised guarantee agreement ie a guarantee of the performance of the obligations of the assignee under the lease. An authorised guarantee agreement can be required by the landlord from an assignor when the lease contains a qualified covenant against assignment so that the assignment requires the consent of the landlord. Consent can be given subject to

Section 168(2)(c) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002) provides that a landlord of a long lease of a dwelling may not serve a notice pursuant to section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 in respect of a breach of covenant in the lease unless it has been finally determined by a tribunal or court that a breach has occurred or the tenant has admitted the breach. We