Chester Clinic

 

Martin howe qc: curriculum vitae and practice summary

Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary MARTIN HOWE Q.C.
8 New Square, Lincoln's Inn
London WC2A 3QP
Tel: 020 7405 4321
Fax: 020 7405 9955
Chambers website:
SUMMARY OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
Chambers of Mark Platts-Mills QC
Called to the Bar: 1978.
Appointed Queen's Counsel: 1996.
Fields of law: Intellectual property law, European Union law, and commercial and
public law cases. Many high technology cases, with particular emphasis on
computing and information technology, and the internet and electronic
communications field; also extensive experience in biotechnology/genetic
engineering/recombinant DNA cases. IP work includes patents, trade marks,
copyrights, conditional access (decryption) rights, designs (registered and
unregistered), database rights, and trade secrets and other confidential information.
Extensive EU law practice both within the intellectual property field and extendingoutside it to the free movement of goods and services, to EU based pharmaceutical,agrochemical and microbiological regulatory law as well as EU and EU-basednational laws on data protection, telecommunications, information society services(including law governing ISPs) and satellite broadcasting and communications.
Telecommunications work includes cases under the Electronic CommunicationsCode (formerly Telecommunications Code) relating to siting of masts and othercommunications equipment.
Courts and tribunals: Conducts cases in European Tribunals including the
the Technical Boards of Appeal and Opposition Divisions. Appears in English and and tribunals, as well as Proceedings undertaken include High Court civil litigation (principally in the
Chancery Division), injunctions, search orders (Anton Piller) and computer
examination orders, judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court,
proceedings in the UK Intellectual Property Office, European Patent Office and
OHIM, and specialist criminal cases (Court of Appeal Criminal Division and Crown
Court).
Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary Publications: Author of leading practitioner textbooks: & Maxwell, (1998 and 2005 Eds), and (1985, 1995, 2000 Eds), as well as numerous
Degree in Engineering (Part I) and Law
(Part II) at Cambridge University (Trinity Hall), where awarded the Baker Prize for
Engineering; Bar Exams course at College of Law, London (awarded the ver Heyden
Foundation Prize for advocacy, and Harmsworth Exhibition and Astbury Law Prize
by the Middle Temple); worked as a commercial and systems software programmer
for IBM and for a software house and have maintained interest in evolving computer
technology.
Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary EXAMPLE CASES AND FIELDS OF WORK:
Software and Information Technology
Deals with intellectual property type disputes in the field of computer programs,software and information technology, which are mainly issues of copyrightinfringement or database right; also deals with pure contractual IT disputes bringinginto play practical experience of having worked in the computer industry.
Example cases (underlining indicates the name of the client): SAS Institute Inc v. World Programming Ltd heard by Arnold J. June 2010.
Copyright - EU Software Directive - Computer language - Writing
program to implement computer language implemented by claimant's
program - whether capable of infringing.
The claimant created a computer language called 'SAS' which allows the execution of statisticalprograms. The defendants produced a program which allows programs in the SAS Language to beexecuted on their alternative platform. Judgment is awaited.
Nova Productions Ltd v. Bell Fruit Games Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 219, 14 March
2007; first instance decision [2006] RPC 14 p379; [2006] EMLR 14. Copyright -
Video games - Artistic copyright in generated images - Copyright in
games software under EC Software Directive - Copying of software by
creating program to generate similar outputs - whether capable of
infringing.
The claimant created a successful video game called "Pocket Money" based on the game of pool. Thedefendants produced games also based on the game of pool called respectively 'Jackpot Pool' and 'TrickShot.' The claimant was held entitled to copyright in artistic works consisting of the screen images or'frames' generated by its game when played, and in the source code of the games program itself, but thegame was held not to entitled to copyright as a 'dramatic work'. It was held that certain elements of thedefendants' games had been derived from Pocket Money, but that these elements were too general toamount to a substantial part of the claimant's copyright works. The Court of Appeal in a decision of wideranging importance held that it could not be an infringement of copyright in a computer program toobserve the program in operation and write a program which produces the same or similar outputs.
Net Online Ltd v. Job Depot Ltd (Pumfrey J, November 1999): Computer softwareinfringement action concerning internet and Lotus Notes based software forhandling and matching CVs and job vacancies. The case was settled in the course ofthe trial.
Taylor v. Ishida (Pumfrey J, May 1999): Patent - Automated packaging
machinery - Software algorithms.
Patent infringement action concerning packaging machinery, the movement of whose parts werecontrolled by algorithms implemented in software. The patent was held valid and infringed.
Ibcos Computers Ltd v. Barclays Mercantile [1994] FSR 275, Jacob J. Copyright -
Computer software - Proving copying - Program structure and
substantial part.
Copyright in computer software for agricultural equipment dealers was held to have been infringed bythe defendants. The Court expounded the principles applicable to deciding what degree of resemblanceamounts to reproduction of a "substantial part" in this context.
Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary Many cases now involve the internet, which raises issues under different aspects ofintellectual property law including trade marks and copyright. Regularly advises onthe position of ISPs and other entities who host online materials uploaded by otherson their position under the special defences under the E-Commerce Directive(Directive 2000/31/EC), as well as jurisdictional issues such as exposure to US lawunder the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
Example cases (underlining indicates the name of the client): Reed Executive PLC v. Reed Business Information Ltd and Reed Elsevier (UK) Ltd.
[2004] RPC 767, Ct of Appeal. Trade marks and the internet - Meta data,
search engine optimisation and search keywords - Honest use of own
name by company.
A dispute between the well known high street employment agency business and the well known ReedElsevier publishing group about the use of the trade mark REED on the internet primarily inrecruitment and job advertising contexts. The Court of Appeal (Jacob LJ) gave important guidance onthe law of trade mark infringement and the internet, particularly on "invisible" uses of trade marks suchas in "metadata" and on the use of competitors' trade marks in search engines and as keywords to triggeradvertisements. The appeal was successful in reversing findings of infringement and passing off againstReed Elsevier on all matters on which they appealed.
Reed Executive PLC v. Reed Business Information Ltd and Reed Elsevier (UK) Ltd.
(No. 2) [2005] FSR 3 p16, Ct of Appeal. Costs of appeal - Refusal by party to
enter into mediation - Whether 'without prejudice' negotiations may be
taken into account.
The respondent sought to avoid paying the costs of Reed Elsevier's successful appeal because its offer tomediate had been rejected. However, its offer to mediate had been followed by substantial 'withoutprejudice' negotiations and Reed Elsevier successfully argued that the court could not conclude that itsrefusal to mediate was unreasonable without going into the substance of the without prejudicenegotiations, which the court had no jurisdiction to do.
Telecomms (mobile, fixed line and networks)
The convergence of traditional mobile and fixed line telephony with the internet andother networks has led to many new legal issues arising. Advises on competition andIP issues arising on interconnection between the traditional telephone network andnew internet based services such as VOIP (Voice over IP).
Currently conducting cases under the Electronic Communications Code (formerlythe Telecommunications Code). This little known and surprising piece of legislationgives telecomms operators, including mobile telephone companies, certaincompulsory purchase type powers to retain their masts on land even when theircontractual lease or licence has run out or been validly terminated. Displacing thesemasts in order e.g. to make way for a redevelopment of a site may involve a complexcase in which technical expert evidence is deployed to rebut assertions by mobileoperators that siting of a particular mast is essential to maintaining networkcoverage.
Example cases (underlining indicates the name of the client): MMI Research Ltd v Cellxion Ltd and ors [2009] EWHC 418 (Pat). Patent -
Interception method for GSM mobile telephones.
A patent for a method of intercepting mobile telephone calls and identifying mobile phones on GSM andother digital cellular networks. Sales and demonstrations to government and law enforcement agenciesmade before the priority date were held to have been confidential and so not available to attack the Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary validity of the patent. The patent was held to be non-obvious over the published prior art, and infringedby the defendant's system notwithstanding that it used a network "cell reselection offset" parameter tocause target mobiles to reselect to the interception device and not just raw transmitted power: In further proceedings after judgment, Floyd J. held that a modified design of equipmentstill infringed where part of the functions of the 'test mobile phone' of Claim 1 had been replaced by adigital scanner; however he declined to rule on the question of whether or not the Crown user provisionsof the Patents Act 1977 could apply to the use of the equipment by police forces in the absence of anactual authorisation under the Act by a government department: Secretary of State for Education and Skills v Frontline Technology Ltd. [2004]
EWHC 1487; further judgment on amendment application [2005] EWHC 37.
Patent - Radio network technology for student attendance registration.
A patent action in which the Education Department sought to revoke a patent for a system of radionetworking to allow attendance registration in schools. The wide claims of the patent were held invalidin the light of prior art, but a narrower claim more specifically focussed on the specific features of thepatentee's radio network system was upheld.
British Telecommunications PLC v. Planet Telecom PLC and 192enquiries.com Ltd
(Patten J, 14 March 2002). Passing off - Directory enquiry services -
Premium rate faxback forms - Order to put on disclaimers in form
specified by the court.
The defendants operated an internet directory enquiry service. They sent out large numbers of fax formswhich invited recipients to fax back corrections to their directory enquiry details on a premium ratenumber. BT contended that substantial numbers of recipients would be confused by the forms and faxthem back in the belief that they were in fact correcting the information being given out on BT's 192directory enquiry service. On an interim injunction hearing, Patten J applied Sony v Saray (see above)and ordered the defendants to include a prominent disclaimer of any association with BT in their faxforms.
Cable & Wireless PLC v. British Telecommunications PLC [1998] FSR 383. Trade
marks - Comparative advertising - Telephone tariff comparisons.
A case concerning comparative advertising of telephone tariffs, in which it was alleged that thedefendants had infringed the plaintiffs' trade mark by making misleading comparisons and so had usedthe mark "contrary to honest practices in industrial and commercial matters" (Trade Marks Act 1994,section 10(6)). The Court refused an interlocutory injunction.
Western Electric Ltd v. Racal-Milgo Ltd [1981] RPC 253. Patents - Modems -
Adaptive equalisation - Data scrambling.
A patent case concerning adaptive equalisation of analogue telephone lines carrying computer modemsignals, and digital scrambling of the signals. Both patents were held invalid on the grounds ofinsufficiency.
Codex v. Racal-Milgo [1983] RPC 369, Ct of Appeal. Patent - Modem
technology.
Infringement of a patent relating to the form of signal used in computer modems and the apparatus usedto encode those signals.
(Underlining indicates name of the client.) Football Association Premier League Ltd v. QC Leisure and others Chancery
Division (Kitchin J) [2008] EWHC 1411 (Ch); ECJ Case C-403/08. Conditional
access devices (satellite decoder cards) - Rights under section 298 CDPA
1988 and the Conditional Access Directive 98/84/EC - Parallel
Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary importation of satellite decoder cards of non-UK satellite broadcasters
and use in pubs - Free movement of goods and services under EC Treaty -
Copyright and creation of transient copies of broadcast works inside
decoder boxes - Reference to ECJ.
FAPL purport to sell broadcasting rights for Premier League football matches on a territorially exclusivebasis. The defendants were importers of satellite decoder cards issued by non-UK broadcasters and anumber of publicans who used those cards to show foreign satellite broadcasts which include PremierLeague football matches. FAPL claimed entitlement under section 298 of the Copyright Designs andPatents Act 1988 ("apparatus for unauthorised reception of transmissions") to restrain importation,dealing and possession for commercial purposes of the foreign decoder cards. Section 298 transposesinto UK domestic law the Conditional Access Directive 98/84/EC. FAPL also claimed copyright incertain films, artistic works and musical works included in the broadcasts of their matches and allegedthat the creation of transient electronic copies of those works inside satellite decoder boxes when used inthe UK would infringe their copyright. The defendants contended that section 298 and the ConditionalAccess Directive provide remedies only for pirate decoder cards and do not apply to parallel importedlawful cards; that enforcement of the rights claimed by FAPL would interfere with the free movement ofgoods under Articles 28-30 of the EC Treaty and the right to receive cross-border satellite broadcastingservices under Article 49; and that FAPL's attempts to divide the common market into exclusiveterritorial zones and to prevent all competition between their licensees amounted to a breach ofcompetition law under Article 81(1) EC. The trial judge (Kitchin J) decided to refer the questions ofCommunity law to the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg, where the oral hearing is due inOctober 2010. Football Association Premier League Ltd v. QC Leisure and others [2008] EWHC
44 (ch), Barling J, 18 Jan 2008. Competition law - Division of common
market into exclusive territorial zones for broadcasting of Premier
League football matches - Parallel importation of satellite decoder cards
of non-UK satellite broadcasters and use in pubs in UK - Free movement
of goods and services under EC Treaty - Whether restrictions on export
of decoder cards imposed by FAPL on licensees contrary to Article 81 EC.
FAPL purport to sell broadcasting rights for Premier League football matches on a territorially exclusivebasis, to different broadcasting organisations in different EC Member States. FAPL imposed contractualrestrictions on its licensees requiring them to prevent the export from their territories of satellitedecoder cards which gave access to broadcasts carrying FAPL football matches. The defendants wereimporters of satellite decoder cards issued by non-UK broadcasters and a number of publicans who usedthose cards to show foreign satellite broadcasts which include Premier League football matches. FAPLsought a strike-out or summary judgment dismissing a defence asserting that FAPL's restrictionsbreached Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. Barling J dismissed the application, with the consequence thatthe pleaded defence went on to be considered on its merits at the trial of the action before Kitchin J (seeabove). Murphy v. Media Protection Services Ltd [2007] EWHC 3091 (Admin), 21 Dec 2007
(Pumfrey LJ and Stanley Burnton J); and [2008] EWHC 1666 (Admin), 16 July
2008 (Stanley Burnton LJ and Barling J); ECJ Case C-429/08. Dishonest
reception of programmes without paying 'charge applicable to reception'
- Criminal offence under section 297 CDPA 1988 - Appeal to High Court
on case stated - Reference to ECJ.
The defendant had purchased a satellite decoder card which gave access to broadcasts by a Greeksatellite channel called Nova. These broadcasts included live broadcasts of Premier League footballmatches which were simultaneously broadcast by Sky in the United Kingdom. The defendant used theGreek decoder card to show a live broadcast of a match in her pub. Sky's subscription would have beensignificantly higher than the charge which she paid to a dealer to obtain the Nova card. She wasprosecuted and convicted by a magistrate and by Portsmouth Crown Court for dishonestly receiving aprogramme provided from a place in the United Kingdom without paying the charge applicable toreception of the programme. The High Court on appeal by "case stated" interpreted section 297 as amatter of UK domestic law as covering her acts; but postponed consideration of whether the section asso interpreted is in conflict with European Community law. On 16 July 2008, the Court (reconstitutedafter the death of Pumfrey LJ as Stanley Burnton LJ and Barling J) accepted that section 297 as Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary interpreted in the previous judgment may conflict the rules of the EC Treaty on the free movement ofgoods and services and with the Conditional Access Directive (Directive 98/84/EC) and decided to makea reference to the ECJ at Luxembourg. The President of the ECJ ordered that this case proceed as ajoined case with FAPL v. QC Leisure (see above), and the oral hearing is due in Luxembourg in October2010. Media Protection Services Ltd v. Piercy Sept 2009, Newcastle Crown Court (HH
Judge Lancaster). Dishonest reception of programmes without paying
'charge applicable to reception' - Criminal offence under section 297
CDPA 1988 - Crown Court appeal.
The defendant had purchased a satellite decoder card which gave access to broadcasts by a Middle Eastand North African satellite channel called ART. These broadcasts included live broadcasts of PremierLeague football matches which were simultaneously broadcast by Sky in the United Kingdom. Thedefendant used the ART decoder card to show a live broadcast of a match in his pub. Sky's subscriptionwould have been significantly higher than the charge which he paid to a dealer to obtain the ART card.
He was prosecuted and after conviction by the magistrates, he appealed to the Crown Court. Afterhearing the defendant's evidence, the Crown Court decided that the necessary element of dishonesty wasnot made out and quashed the conviction, making it unnecessary for the Crown Court to deal with theextensive defence submissions on EC law and the relationship of this case to Murphy (see above). [Nojudgment available.] Pro Sieben Media AG v. Carlton UK Television Ltd [1999] FSR 610, Ct of Appeal.
Copyright in television broadcasts - Fair dealing defences.
The Court held, reversing the trial judge, that the inclusion in a TV programme on the subject of"chequebook journalism" of a section from a programme on a German TV channel featuring MandyAllwood (who had become pregnant with 8 foetuses) amounted to fair dealing for the purposes ofreporting current events and of criticism or review. First instance judgment reported at [1998] FSR 43.
Music Broadcasting and Sound Recordings
Substantial experience of the enforcement of copyright in sound recordings andmusical works by way of Anton Piller (search) Orders. Contractual disputes betweencreative people (artists, performers etc) and recording and broadcasting companies.
(Underlining indicates name of the client.) Robin Ray v. Classic FM PLC [1998] FSR 622, Ch D (Lightman J). Copyright -
Master catalogue of musical tracks - Consultant - Onwership of copyright
- Scope of licence under copyright did not extend to overseas radio
stations.
The well known broadcaster and classical music expert Robin Ray compiled a catalogue of manythousands of CD tracks for Classic FM which formed the basis of its broadcast repertoire. Mr Raycompiled the catalogue under a consultancy agreement which was concluded when Classic FM's onlycontemplated broadcasting activity was its radio station in the UK. Subsequently, Classic FM licensed its"format" including a playlist based on the catalogue to certain radio stations overseas. The Court rejectedarguments that the catalogue was a work of joint authorship and that Mr Ray was acting as an employeerather than a self employed consultant, and held that Classic FM's implied licence under Mr Ray'scopyright to use the catalogue compiled by him did not extend to making copies for the use of theoverseas stations. Sadly, Mr Ray died not long after the trial, but the proceedings have since been settledon satisfactory terms.
Free movement of goods and services in the European Union -
pharmaceutical, agrochemical and other sectors
Regularly advises and conducts cases under the rules developed by the EuropeanCourt of Justice on the free movement of goods under Articles 28 and 30 (formerlyArticles 30 and 36) of the EC Treaty. This work covers the relationship between free Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary movement rules and patents, trade marks and copyrights on the one hand; and withnational and EC laws relating to product licences and marketing authorisations onthe other hand, including the rules governing "data exclusivity periods".
A major area of advice at present are parallel imports of drugs from the newEuropean Union Accession States of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania. Parallel imports ofpharmaceutical products from these states are potentially restricted by a specialprovision in the Act of Accession called the "Specific Mechanism". The SpecificMechanism permits the owner of a patent covering a pharmaceutical product in anexisting Member State to prevent parallel imports of his own products from one ofthese accession States if at the filing date of the patent it would not have possible toobtain a pharmaceutical product patent in the Accession State concerned. Applyingthe Specific Mechanism to a particular case therefore involves examining the law ofthe relevant Accession State at the relevant date. Further issues can arise as towhether a particular patent is for a pharmaceutical product, or, for example, for adelivery mechanism for a drug. The Specific Mechanism also allows enforcement ofSupplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) against parallel imports from thesestates if an SPC could not have been obtained on the date of application for the SPCin the country of importation. SPCs based on pharmaceutical process patents arealso covered by this rule.
The free movement rules are relevant to many fields apart from pharmaceuticals,including e.g that of satellite decoder cards (see above). The parallel importation ofgoods from outside the EC single market is covered by different rules which aremore restrictive than those applying to trade within the single market.
Example cases (underlining indicates the name of the client): Merck v. Primecrown Ltd [1997] 1 CMLR 83; [1997] FSR 237; Joined Cases C-
267/95 and C-268/95. EC free movement of goods - Parallel imports of
patented pharmaceuticals - Spain and Portugal accession conditions.
Concerned parallel imports of pharmaceuticals within the EC, in particular from Spain and Portugal. TheECJ decided (reaffirming its earlier case law) that a patent owner who consents to placing products onthe market anywhere in the EC, even in a country where patent protection is inadequate, cannot preventparallel imports into other member states. The ECJ also ruled on the dates of expiry of the transitionalarticles in the accession arrangements of Spain and Portugal, which restricted parallel imports ofpharmaceutical products from those countries for limited periods. The decision of the Patents Court(Jacob J) referring the case to the ECJ is reported at [1995] FSR 909.
R. v. Medicines Control Agency ex parte Smith & Nephew Plc, intervener
Primecrown Ltd [1997] 1 CMLR 812, Case C-201/94. EC Medicines Directive -
Free movement of goods - Marketing authorisation for parallel imports.
Concerned the compatibility with Community law of the grant by the Medicines Control Agency of aproduct licence for parallel importation of a pharmaceutical from another member state. The ECJdecided that a product licence allowing parallel importation should be granted when the same productsin different member states are put on the market by companies under licence from a common licensor,as well as in the case when the companies are corporately linked.
R. v. Medicines Control Agency ex parte Smith & Nephew, intervener Primecrown
Ltd [1999] RPC 705. EC Medicines Directive - Licence suspended by interim
injunction - Assessment of damages under the cross-undertaking.
A claim for damages under a cross undertaking in damages given in return for interim relief which Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary restrained the holder of a parallel import licence from importing and selling a pharmaceutical productpending a ruling from the European Court. The decision of the ECJ (see above) had the consequencethat the licence in issue had been validly granted. The Court held that the licence holding company, inwhose favour the cross undertaking had been given, could not recover in respect of trading profits lostby an associated company which would have traded under the licence, but could recover reasonableroyalty in respect of the exploitation of the licence which would have taken place if the interim relief hadnot been granted.
R v. MAFF ex parte Monsanto PLC, intervener Clayton Plant Protection Ltd Case C-
306/98 (Judgment 3 May 2001). EC Directive on agrochemical products -
Authorisation of generics.
Judicial review proceedings concerning the validity of the grant under Directive 91/414/EEC of anagrochemical product licence to a generic producer. The ECJ upheld the validity of the grant of thegeneric licence under the transitional provisions of the Directive. Earlier proceedings in the Queen'sBench Divisional Court concerning interim relief are reported at [1998] 4 All ER 321; [1999] FSR 223;the Divisional Court accepted undertakings proffered by Clayton to keep its sales under the disputedlicence below ceiling figures until the case was dealt with by the ECJ.
Bolton Pharmaceutical Co 100 Ltd v. Swinghope Ltd and ors [2006] EWCA Civ 661
(Mummery LJ, Longmore LJ and Lewison J, 26 May 2006). EC Free Movement
of Goods - Pharmaceutical Parallel Imports - Trade Marks - Summary
Judgment.
A pharmaceutical parallel import case, in which summary judgment granted at first instance (whenother counsel appeared) was set aside. AstraZeneca had been the original owner of product licences,know-how and trade marks in the UK and Spain relating to a hypertension drug brand named Kalten.
Owing to price differences, a parallel import trade grew up between Spain and the UK. AZ divested itselfof the rights to the drug in Spain and the UK to apparently unrelated entities in each country. TheClaimant acquired the UK trade mark and other rights and asserted that it now had the right to preventthe importation into the UK of Spanish Kalten, because there no longer any "economic link" betweenitself the UK trade mark proprietor and the Spanish Kalten product. It successfully applied for summaryjudgment on this basis against a number of parallel importers of Spanish Kalten. The Court of Appeal setaside the summary judgments because it considered that the facts and circumstances of AZ's divestitureof its rights and its continuing relationship with the entities in the UK and Spain required furtherinvestigation, and because of the ECJ's developing jurisprudence on the artificial partitioning of nationalmarkets under the second sentence of Article 30 of the EC Treaty.
Miller Brewing Co v Mersey Docks & Harbour Co [2004] FSR 5. Trade marks -
Infringing goods and warehousemen, shippers etc.
A cargo of infringing parallel imported beer was injuncted while still in bond. In multi-party proceedingsinvolving the importer, a warehouse, shipping agents and shipping company, the court ordereddestruction of the beer and determined who was liable for storage and other charges incurred. Theclaimant successfully resisted indemnifying the shipping agents against the liability they had incurred forwarehouse charges.
Extrude Hone's Patent [1982] RPC 361. Patent - Compulsory licence - EC rules
on free movement of goods.
Concerned machinery for honing holes inside castings and the like by forcing through abrasive puttyunder pressure. The court held that the grant of a compulsory licence under a patent on the ground thatthe market was met by importation from another EC member state did not amount to a quantitativerestriction on trade between member states, or a measure having equivalent effect, contrary to Arts 30-36 of the EC Treaty. (NB This decision has since been overruled by subsequent decisions of the ECJ andthe House of Lords.) EU regulatory laws (pharmaceuticals, microbiological, plant
Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary Example cases (underlining indicates the name of the client): R v. Hitendra Patel Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), [2009] EWCA Crim 2311.
Criminal offence based on Directive 2001/83/EC of placing a medicinal
product on the market without a marketing authorisation - does not
apply to transactions leading to export outside the EEA.
The defendant, a licensed pharmaceutical wholesaler, imported a number of consignments of whatappeared to be Viagra and supplied them to another licensed wholesaler for export to the Bahamas. Itturned out that the Viagra was counterfeit and the defendant was charged with a number of seriousoffences. The prosecution ultimately accepted that the defendant was not aware that the Viagra was fakeand dropped all the charges involving mens rea. However, the prosecution proceeded with theregulatory offence of "placing a medicinal product on the market without a marketing authorisation"contrary to the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations Etc.) Regulations 1994, SI 1994 No3144, and secured a ruling from the Crown Court judge that on the admitted facts the defendant wasguilty of this offence, which was one of strict liability. In the face of this ruling, the defendant pleadedguilty, but appealed to the Court of Appeal challenging the correctness of this ruling in law as well asappealing on other matters. Martin Howe QC was instructed on the appeal to argue this ground, workingin conjuction with Orlando Pownall QC who had appeared below and dealt with the other aspects of theappeal. The defendant's case was that the offence under the 1994 Regulations had been created to giveeffect to the UK's obligations under the Medicinal Products Directive 65/65/EEC (later consolidated intoDirective 2001/83/EC), that the Directive was made under Article 95 of the EC Treaty for the purpose ofharmonising the rules applicable to medicinal products placed on the EC internal market, and that thisaspect of the Directive therefore had no application to medicinal products intended for export tocountries outside the EU. The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant's appeal and quashed theconvictions.
Seahawk Marine Foods Ltd v. Southampton Port Health Authority [2002] EHLR
306, Ct of Appeal. EC Regulations on microbiological safety standards for
food.
The Port Health Authority, a designated EC border inspection post, made a decision prohibiting theimportation of seafood from Vietnam as a result of conducting microbiological tests on the cargo. Thedecision was challenged in judicial review proceedings as being contrary to relevant Community law. TheCourt of Appeal, reversing the decision of Newman J in the Administrative Court, held that theAuthority's assessment of the test results and its resulting decision was compatible with Community law.
Antonio Muñoz y Cia SA v. Frumar Ltd Case C-253/00 (ECJ Judgment 17 Sept
2002). EC Regulations on fruit varieties - DNA technology - Direct
applicability of Regulations by civil action in member state.
Action brought by a grape producer to enforce compliance by a competitor with EC Regulations on thecommon organisation of the market in table grapes. The case involved the application of DNAtechnology to identifying the genetic composition of the grapes in order to prove that they were in fact ofdifferent variety from that claimed by the competitor. The trial judge (Laddie J, [1999] FSR 872)accepted the DNA and other evidence and held that the defendants had breached the regulations byapplying the wrong variety names to grapes which they had imported and sold. However, he held that abreach of the Regulations did not give rise to a civil right of action on the part of a competitor such asthe plaintiff. The Court of Appeal referred the case to the ECJ, which ruled that such a breach does giverise to a civil right of action in the part of a competing producer such as Muñoz.
Antonio Muñoz y Cia SA v. Frumar Ltd [1999] FSR 872, Ch D (Laddie J). EC
Regulations on grape varieties - Action by competitor against trader
using wrong variety name - Variety proved by DNA evidence.
Case about grape varieties. The Court held on the basis of DNA evidence that the defendants had usedvariety names for grapes different from the correct variety name required by EC Regulations on thecommon organisation of the market. Therefore the defendants had breached the Regulations, but theCourt held that breach of the Regulations did not give rise to a right to sue in the civil courts on the partof competing grape producers or traders. The European Court of Justice reversed this finding of law on a Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary preliminary reference made by the Court of Appeal (see above).
SPI PLC v. Southampton Port Health Authority (Queen's Bench Division, Crown
Office List, Newman J, 4 April 2000). EC fishery products Directive - Marking
requirements on products imported into the EU.
Judicial review application concerning the interpretation of the marking requirements on productsimported into the European Community under the fishery products Directive 91/493/EEC. The Courtindicated its agreement with the respondent's position that markings identifying the establishment oforigin of the products must be placed on inner packaging as well as on outer containers.
Advice on data protection issues is assisted by a good understanding of thetechnicalities of the underlying IT operations. By its nature, data protection work islargely advisory since very few cases actually come to court or the InformationTribunal (formerly Data Protection Tribunal). The case below is one of only ahandful of data protection cases which have actually been heard in the High Courtand Court of Appeal.
(Underlining indicates name of the client.) Johnson v. Medical Defence Union Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 262, 28 March 2007; (first
instance judgment [2006] EWHC 1649, High Court, Chancery Division, 4 May
2006). Data protection - Scope of 'processing' - Fairness - Information to
be given to data subject.
The claimant, a surgeon and long standing member of the MDU, was removed from membershipwithout warning under an internal 'risk assessment' procedure, despite the fact that no claims fornegligence had been made against him in the course of his career. He applied for and obtained copies ofthe files relating to this procedure under the Data Protection Act 1998. He brought this action tochallenge the fairness of the way the MDU had processed his personal data and their failure to giveadvance notice to him that his personal data would be used in this procedure. The trial judge (Rimer J)held that the use of information about him in the risk assessment procedure was 'processing' under theAct, and that the MDU was in breach of the Act by failing to notify him that certain data obtained fromthird parties would be used in considering his case. However, the MDU were held entitled to operate apolicy under which they considered simply the existence of allegations or complaints in assessing riskand did not pay regard to their merits, and it was held that the Act did not entitle a data subject toquestion the fairness of that commercial policy. The Court of Appeal decided by a majority (Buxton andLongmore LJJ, Arden LJ dissenting) that the relevant step of the risk assessment procedure was not"processing" under the Act since it was performed by human mental processes rather than by machine.
Biotechnology and recombinant DNA
Example cases (underlining indicates the name of the client): Genentech's Patent [1989] RPC 147. Patent - Recombinant DNA technology -
Tissue plasminogen activator.
Concerned the validity of a patent for the production of human tissue plasminogen activator byrecombinant DNA technology. The patent was held invalid on the grounds of obviousness and becausethe claims were too broad. Judgment of the Patents Court at [1987] RPC 553.
Biogen Inc v. Medeva PLC [1997] RPC 1. House of Lords - Patent -
Recombinant DNA technology - Hepatitis B viral antigen.
Patent relating to the production by recombinant DNA technology of Hepatitis B virus antigens for usein vaccines. The patent was held valid at first instance, but held invalid in the Court of Appeal and the Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary House of Lords. The case established the principles applicable to the patentability of inventions in thegenetic engineering field. (Proceedings in the lower courts reported at [1995] RPC 25).
Celltech Therapeutics, opponent Eli Lilly Case T400/97, EPO Technical Board of
Appeals, 26 May 2000. Patent - Recombinant DNA technology - hybrid
(human/non-human) antibodies.
A patent concerned with the engineering of hybrid (human/non-human) antibodies. The validity of thepatent was challenged on the grounds of prior public disclosure at a lecture and insufficiency. The Boardrejected the attacks based on prior public disclosure but greatly restricted the claims on the insufficiencygrounds.
Pertussis antigen/Evans Medical Ltd Case T780/95, European Patent Office
Technical Board of Appeals, 11 March 1998. Patent - Recombinant DNA
technology - Pertussis (whooping cough) antigens.
A biotechnology case concerning the validity of a patent for an antigen of the pertussis bacterium used inwhooping cough vaccine. The Board held the patent to be insufficient. Also appeared in the trial on thesame patent in the English Patents Court: Evans Medical Ltd's Patent [1998] RPC 517.
Hepatitis B virus/Biogen Inc Case T886/91, European Patent Office Technical Boardof Appeals, 16 June 1994. Parallel proceedings to those in the House of Lordsconcerning the same patent: see above.
The Muñoz case (see above) also involved the use of DNA technology for the purposeof identifying the grape variety in issue. Grape varieties are clones propogated bycuttings, so the process is analogous to that of indentifying a particular individual inthe case of a human or animal.
Auchincloss v. Agricultural and Veterinary Supplies [1999] RPC 397. Patent -
Virucidal product.
Patent infringement action concerning a virucidal composition for use in agriculture. Patents Courtjudgment reported at [1997] RPC 649.
Medical devices and technology
Example cases (underlining indicates the name of the client): Occlutech GmbH v. AGA Medical Corp [2010] EWCA Civ 702, Court of Appeal.
Patent validity and infringement - Implantable occlusion devices for
atrial septal defects - Purposive construction of claims.
A case concerning occlusion devices for implantation via a catheter in the septum (wall) between the twoparts of the atrium. Xylum Corporation v. Gorog July 1997, Laddie J. Exclusive licence under
patent - Thrombosis diagnostic equipment - Scope of improvements
clause - New patent taken out by relative of inventor.
A case concerning apparatus for measuring the susceptibility of human blood to thrombosis. Thedefendant inventors had entered into an exclusive licence agreement with the plaintiff licensees. Theagreement gave the plaintiff licensees certain rights in respect of improvements to the original invention.
The court held that an apparatus patented in the name of the inventors' daughter amounted to animprovement to the original invention falling within the scope of the agreement.
Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary Fairfax (Dental Equipment) Ltd v. SJ Filhol Ltd [1986] RPC 499, Ct of Appeal.
Patent validity and infringement - Dental anchoring device (dentine pin).
The case concerned a patent for a one piece device which consisted of a dentine pin (a small grub screwfor anchoring a filling to the sub-structure of a tooth) connected to a body which fitted into a standarddental drill. In use, the pin would shear off at a narrowed neck when in place in the tooth and the bodywould be discarded. The alleged infringement was constructed out of two pieces put in use effectivelyfunctioned in the same way with a disposable body. The Court of Appeal upheld the first instancedecision (of Whitford J) that the patent was valid and infringed.
Defence industries, warheads and explosives
Example cases (underlining indicates the name of the client): Cintec International Ltd v Parkes (t/a Dell Explosives) [2003] EWHC 2328. Patent
threats action - Water filled devices for dampening effects of explosions -
Jurisdiction between Scotland and England - Brussels Convention rules.
A patent action about methods for protecting people and property against bomb blasts using soft watercontaining 'inflatables' to absorb the blast. The defendants started proceedings in the Court of Session inEdinburgh making extensive allegations of infringement of patents. They also made threats withinEngland and Wales to the claimant itself and others of patent infringement proceedings. The claimantwas held entitled to bring a 'threats' action in the Patents Court in London despite the existence of theScottish proceedings on the ground that they related to a different, even if related, cause of action. Thecourt held that the patent was not infringed by the claimant's product and the threats were not justified.
Societa Esplosivi Industriali SpA v Ordnance Technologies (UK) Ltd [2004] 1 All
E.R.(Comm) 619. Shaped charge designs for multiple warhead missiles -
Commercial dispute under development 'teaming agreements' - Design
rights - Trade secrets.
The parties had been involved in joint projects involving the design and testing of multiple warheadsystems including shaped charges for 'bunker busting' cruise missiles. The commercial relationshipbetween the parties broke down and the claimant sought to establish its claimed rights in the designsand to prevent the defendant from making use of the jointly developed designs in contracts with thirdparties. The claimant was largely successful in its claims. The case involved the court ruling on thecorrect procedures to be followed when disclosure documents fall within the Official Secrets Act.
Societa Esplosivi Industriali SpA v Ordnance Technologies (UK) Ltd [2007] EWHC
2875 (Ch), Lindsay J. Shaped charge designs for multiple warhead missiles -
Commercial dispute under development 'teaming agreements' - Design
rights - Trade secrets - Director's liabity for tort of company.
A further hearing in the SEI case (above). Lindsay J held that OTL had used the jointly owned designs incarrying out a project for the UK Ministry of Defence and that the sole director of OTL was liable forthose acts as a joint tortfeasor. In relation to another project (for Raytheon), he held that the designwhich was modelled by computer was not identical to the jointly owned design and so did not infringeand further that there was not a sufficient intention to make actual articles to the design to make thecomputer model an infringing design document under section 226(1)(b) of the CDPA 1988.
Architecture and structural drawings
Example cases (underlining indicates the name of the client): Cala Homes Ltd v. McAlpine [1995] FSR 818, Laddie J. Copyright -
Architectural drawings of standard house types - Authorship -
Infringement.
A case concerning copyright in architectural drawings for Cala's range of standard house types. TheCourt held that Cala's employed director who had supervised and directed the creation of the drawings Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary was a joint author together with the outside architects who had actually drawn them under hissupervision; hence Cala could sue for infringement when the drawings were later substantially copied bythe architects for the use of a competing housebuilder. Further proceedings relating to the inquiry as todamages and account of profits are reported at [1996] FSR 36.
Hill Cannon v. Bunyan Meyer Scott J, April 1991. Copyright - Architectural
drawings - Multistorey car park structural designs
An action for infringement of architectural copyright in structural designs for multistorey car parks. Theaction was settled in the course of the trial on terms that the defendants gave undertakings and paiddamages.
CD and DVD replication, printing and packaging
Example cases (underlining indicates the name of the client): Pioneer Electronics v. Warner Music Mfg [1997] RPC 757. Patent - Infringement
by importing product of process - CDs made from mould not 'direct
products' of process for making mould.
The defendants imported and sold compact discs which were alleged to be the direct products of apatented process, so infringing contrary to section 60(1)(c) of the Patents Act 1977. The last step of theprocess set out in the claim was the production of a stamper for moulding the CDs. The CDs were in turnmade by using the stamper. The Court held that the CDs could not be considered to be a "direct" productof the process within section 60(1)(c). Also at first instance at [1995] RPC 487.
Billhöfer Maschinenfabriek GmbH v. TH Dixons [1990] FSR 105, Hoffmann J.
Copyright - Design drawings - Laminating machinery - Eye appeal and
substantial part.
An action for infringement of copyright in design drawings for laminating machinery. The Court heldthat the defendants had reproduced the plaintiffs' drawings in a brochure, but that they had notreproduced sufficient of the features of shape and appearance of the plaintiffs' machine in their actualmachine for it to amount to an infringing reproduction.
Discovision Associates v. Distronics (UK) Ltd (March 1998, Pumfrey J) Patents -
CD mastering and moulding - Control electonics using phase-locked
loops - Vacuum vapour deposition process.
A patent action relating to 6 patents covering different aspects of the technology of making compactdiscs, including the electronic control systems for laying down the track on the master discs at constantlinear velocity, moulding methods for the plastic replica discs, and vapour deposition of metal substrateon the master discs.
IPC Media v. Highbury Leisure Publishing [2005] FSR 20 p434. Copyright -
Magazine designs - 'Ideal Home' magazine.
The case concerned the alleged copying of the 'format' (appearance and design) of Ideal Home magazineby a competitor magazine called 'Home'. The court (Laddie J) considered that the features of similaritybetween the two magazine designs were at too high a level of generality to give rise to an inference ofcopying, and accepted the defendant's evidence of independent design.
VNU Business Publications v. Ziff Davis [1992] RPC 269. Copyright - Lists of
magazine subscribers - "Seed" names.
Action concerning copyright in lists of names of magazine subscribers, in which the plaintiffs sought toprove infringement by relying upon "seed" names within their list, i.e. deliberately planted false names.
The Court held that the "seed" names must be disclosed to the defendants if their existence is to be Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary relied upon in evidence.
Garments, textiles and carpets
Example cases (underlining indicates the name of the client): Stoddard Intnl Ltd v. Wm Lomas Carpets Ltd [2001] FSR 848, Pumfrey J.
Copyright - Carpet design - Limits of expert evidence.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had copied their "Chamonix" carpet design by bringing outtheir own "Georgiana" design of carpet. Although the defendants were aware of the Chamonix design,the designer whom they had employed to create Georgiana gave evidence that he had not been aware ofit and the judge accepted his evidence. The judge rejected an alternative allegation that the defendantshad caused the designer to infringe by virtue of the instructions which they had given to him.
AL BASSAM Trade Mark [1995] RPC 511. Trade mark - Head shawls -
Ownership as between customer and manufacturer.
The registration of a trade mark was opposed on the ground that the applicant's overseas customer, andnot the applicant, was the true proprietor of the mark. The court held that where a trade mark is inactual use prior to the filing of the application to register the mark, then common law principles shouldbe applied to determine who is the true proprietor. First instance judgment at [1994] RPC 315.
Laura Ashley v. Coloroll Ltd [1987] RPC 1. Trade mark and passing off -
"Tachistoscope" surveys
A trade mark and passing off action in which the court rejected the plaintiffs' allegations that thedefendants' logo was confusingly similar to its own. The main point of interest in the case is the reliancesought to placed on evidence gathered by use of a "tachistoscope", which had been used to measureconsumer perception and confusion by flashing up the defendants' logo on a screen for very shortperiods of time. The court considered that this evidence was not representative of what would happen ina retail context.
Vax Appliances Ltd v. Hoover PLC [1991] FSR 307; [1990] RPC 656. Patent -
Carpet cleaning machinery.
A patent infringement action concerning a cleaning head for a domestic carpet cleaning machine. Thecourt held the patent valid and infringed.
Electronic consumer goods
(Underlining indicates name of the client.) Sony v. Saray Electronics [1983] FSR 302. Passing off/trade mark - Non-
authorised dealers required to put disclaimer labels on goods.
The defendants sold Sony goods to the public but were not authorised dealers. They conducted theirbusiness in a way which led some customers to believe that Sony goods sold by them were covered by amanufacturer's guarantee. The Court granted an interlocutory injunction requiring the defendants to putlabels on Sony goods indicating that they were not authorised dealers and that the goods were notcovered by a manufacturer's guarantee.
Filtration, sieving and refining
Example cases (underlining indicates the name of the client): Russell Finex Ltd v Telsonic AG. [2004] RPC 38 p744. Patent - Ultrasonic
particle sieving machinery - Claim construction.
Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary A declaration of non-infringement was granted to the claimant because its resonator rod could did notfall within the claims which required a "circular" rod. Since the patent did not explain why the claim waslimited to circular rods, the skilled reader would be unable to decide that the limitation imposed by theexpress words had not been intended as so the claim could not be construed "purposively" to cover non-circular variants.
Memcor Australia Pty Ltd v Norit Membraan Technologie BV [2003] FSR 43 p779.
Patent County Ct. - Patent validity and infringement - Water filtration
membrane technology.
The patent was held invalid on the grounds of prior publication by the patentee in a report circulated towater board customers in Australia, and also obvious in the light of common general knowledge in thefield.
Appeal by Professor D Fray: Cambridge University Technology Appeal Tribunal, 22
June 2007. Adjudication on intellectual property rights between university
and staff - Management of patent rights - Process for electro-deoxidation
of titanium and other metals.
Cambrige University's Technology Appeal Tribunal was established to adjudicate upon disputesregarding the exploitation of intellectual property rights in inventions made by the univerity's acedemicstaff. In this first decision by the Tribunal, it laid down general guidelines on the conduct of appeals andon the duties of staff members and Cambridge Enterprise towards each other. Prof Fray's appeal wassuccessful in that CE was held not to have co-operated fully with Prof Fray (as required by the Universityregulations) regarding the termination of a licence arrangement, but Prof Fray's contention that CE hadacted in bad faith was not upheld. Professional negligence and liability (IP related)
Example cases (underlining indicates the name of the client): Halifax Building Society v. Urquhart-Dykes & Lord [1997] RPC 55. Trade mark
agents - Professional negligence - Damage
A case concerning alleged professional negligence by trade mark agents who acted for the buildingsociety when it came into conflict with an insurance company which had used the trade mark Halifax inthe insurance field. The Court held that the trade mark agents had been negligent, but that the plaintiffhad not suffered substantial damage as a result of the negligence and awarded nominal damages.
CHC Software Care v. Hopkins & Wood [1993] FSR 241. Solicitors - Letter sent
on behalf of clients to competitors' customers alleging infringement of
copyright - Whether solicitors liable to competitor - Whether identities of
recipients of letters discloseable by solicitors - Scope of client privilege
and disclosure by solicitors in their own defence
On behalf of a client, a firm of solicitors sent letters to an NHS purchasing body and other potentialcustomers for a software product being sold by the plaintiff making strong allegations that the productinfringed their clients' copyright. Following an examination of the software by experts acting for theparties, the allegation of infringement was abandoned. The client being out of the jurisdiction andprobably impecunious, the plaintff sued the firm of solicitors for sending the letter negligently ormaliciously. The plaintiff was held entitled to disclosure of the identities of persons to whom the lettershad been sent in order for the plaintiff to be able to mitigate the damage done by them. However at trialit was held that in order to succeed in its claim for damages againt the solicitors, the plaintiff needed toprove malice rather than mere negligence and it had not done so.
COURTS, TRIBUNALS AND JURISDICTIONS
Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary European Court of Justice, Luxembourg:
Has conducted the following cases in the European Court in which a judgment hasbeen given (case details set out in industry sections above): Currently engaged in the following pending cases in the European Court (details ofthe cases are given above): European Patent Office, Munich:
Regular appearances before Opposition Divisions and Technical Boards of Appeal ofthe European Patent Office, Munich. Important cases set out above have included: Court of Appeal and House of Lords:
Have appeared in the House of Lords in the leading case on recombinantDNA patents. Numerous of the cases listed above are in the Court of Appeal.
Will undertake cases in overseas jurisdictions with common law legal systems andwhere intellectual property laws are historically derived from UK laws. Extensiveadvisory practice for solicitors and patent attorneys from Hong Kong, Singapore andIreland.
Domestic and arbitral jurisdictions
Will undertake cases in domestic and arbitral jurisdictions. By their nature, thesecases are normally private. However, a publicly reported case in a domestic tribunalhas been one conducted in the Cambridge University Technology Appeal Tribunal: PUBLICATIONS AND LECTURES:
Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary Halsbury's Laws of England Title on Trade Marks and Trade Names: 1984 and1995 editions; jnt. ed. with Mr Justice Jacob; 2000 edition jnt. ed. with JamesAbrahams.
Russell-Clarke on Industrial Designs, 6th edition, Sweet & Maxwell 1998, soleeditor. 7th Ed 2005, Russell-Clarke and Howe on Industrial Designs which includescoverage of Community design right and EC harmonised registered designs.
Other publications and public lectures and seminars (selection
Talk to British Association for Sport and the Law ("BASL") Annual Sports LawConference, Oct 2009: "A Future for Exclusive Territorial Media Rights?"; Welsh Centre for International Affairs, Cardiff, July 2009: "Intellectual Property inan Increasingly Interconnected World"; -speaker IanFletcher, Chief Executive of UK IPO.
Symposium on the Judicial Protection of Copyrights on the Internet, Shanghai,hosted by the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China and the EastChina University of Political Science and Law, April 2009. "Litigating Biotech Patents": CIPA Annual Biotechnology Conference, Nottingham,November 2008. "Balancing the Rights of Users and Right Holders": IBC International CopyrightConference, Dec 2007. "Protecting Confidential Database Information": IP Rights in Financial ServicesConference, June 2007. "The availability of interim injunctions in IP infringement cases": IP Enforcementand Remedies Conference (Lexis-Nexis), October 2006. "Making and selling spare parts: patent, design and trade mark law": CLTConference on Copying Without Infringing, March 2006. "Oakley Inc v. Animal Ltd: Designs create a constitutional mess": [2006] EIPR 192.
Electronic Evidence and Electronic Signatures: Admissibility and Law. Lecture to theChancery Bar Association, Lincoln's Inn Old Hall, April 2005. "The New European Designs Law": address to The Intellectual Property LawyersOrganisation, Oct 2003.
"Parallel Imports, Exhaustion of Rights, Fortress Europe?" talk to The IntellectualProperty Lawyers' Organisation, Dec 1998 "Protection of Industrial Designs under national and EEC law": Lecture to Union desAvocats Européens, Milan 1991 Martin Howe QC: Curriculum Vitae and Practice Summary "Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill: Implications for High-Tech Industries": LSSLLecture, Feb 1988 "Employee Inventions:" Lecture to British-German Jurists' Association, Cologne,1983 "The Nungesser case and patent protection in the Common Market": LSSL Lecture,March 1982 "Infabrics v Jaytex: A Pirates' Charter?" [1981] EIPR 270 "Ghost Marks" and the "NERIT" trade mark case: [1980] EIPR 372; further note onthe case in the Court of Appeal: [1981] EIPR 213 "The Rights of Computer Software Owners": 1980 PCL Law Review "Protection of Computer Produced Designs:" ESC Conference Dec 1980 "Infringing Goods and the Warehouseman": [1979] EIPR 287 Winchester College (1968 to 1972): entrance scholarship 1968; A-Levels in Maths
(Grade A1), Physics (Grade A1), and Further Maths (Grade A)
Trinity Hall, Cambridge University (1973 to 1977): degree subjects Engineering
and Law; BA (Cantab)1977; MA 1979; entrance scholarship to Cambridge 1973;
renewed scholarship 1975; Baker Prize for Engineering 1974 (1st on Cambridge
University examination list, Engineering Preliminary Exams).
Bar Exams course (1977 to 1978): Everard ver Heyden Foundation Prize 1978 (for
Bar Exam course advocacy exercises); Harmsworth Exhibition 1976; Astbury Law
Scholarship 1979.
Worked as a computer systems engineer and contract programmer for IBM UnitedKingdom Limited and then for a software house. Total of 24 months professionalcomputer programming experience.

Source: http://www.martinhowe.co.uk/pubs/legal/mhcv.pdf