Thursday, February 24, 2011

"Work Made for Hire: When Is There Contractual Abuse?


It is a form of clause that I suspect many readers of this blog have encountered. The circumstances are as follows: You represent a non-U.S. entity in an employment or development agreement in which copyright may be created by your client. Your client will perform the agreement outside of the U.S. on behalf of a U.S. entity, and your client is asked to execute a form of assignment, either as part of the agreement. The agreement is governed under the law of one of the U.S. states.

The clause typically goes something like this:
The Employee acknowledges that any original works of authorship that are created by the Employee (solely or jointly with others), within the scope of and during the period of the Employee's relationship with the Company, are deemed a "work made for hire", as that term is defined in the United States Copyright Act, and are protected in accordance therewith. To the extent that any such work is not, by operation of law, a work made for hire as aforesaid, the Employee does hereby transfer and assign to the Company, on a world-wide basis, all her right, title and interest therein, including copyright.
To round out the clause, permit me to set out Section 101 of the U.S. copyright law, which defines a “work made for hire” as
"1. a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment or

2. a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instrucitonal text, as a text, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire."
I must confess: I simply don't understand such a clause in the context that I have described. Let me ennumerate various reasons for my bewilderment:
1. "A work made for hire clause" under U.S. copyright law deals with authorship, not copyright "protectability"(whatever that term means). The issue of authorship is determined by the national copyright law in which the issue arises (at the most, if appropriate, exercise of choice of law provisions will determine which national copyright law shall apply).

2. Stated otherwise, the governing law (being the law of one of the U.S. states) applies to the construction and performance of the agreement. However, the governing law provision cannot provide which substantive copyright law will apply to the issue of authorship. 
3. The parties cannot ex ante provide in the agreement whether a work will, or will not, constitute "a work made for hire". That determination is made in accordance with the statutory provisions of the U.S. copyright law as construed an applied by the courts. More particularly: 
a. If the work is created by an employee, then the first part of the definition will apply (namely--"a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment"), as construed by U.S. courts. 
b. If the work is created by a contractor, then the second part of the definition, being a narrow list of ennumerated exceptions, will apply. It is noted that here, unlike in (a), the parties need to execute a written agreement acknowledging the "work made for hire" status. That said, such a requirement only applies when the parties are in a contractor relationship (which is at its core a contractual arrangement) and not an employer-employee relationship, which is governed first and foremost by a combination of fiduciary duty law and statute, and only secondarily by contract law. All of this, of course, is subject to U.S. case law on the subject. 
4. In either case, as a matter of contract, the parties cannot directly override these statutory provisions ex ante. That renders all reference to the statutory meaning of "work made for hire" irelevant as a contractual matter between the parties. One cannot apply U.S. copyright law to the issue of ownership, unless U.S. copyright law other applies to the question of authorship. 
5. At the most, the parties can ex post provide for an assignment of copyright ownership, whereby the party deemed to be the initial author may transfer ownership to another party.
If the foregoing analysis is correct, the question is then asked: why does this type

of clause persist? I have several possible explanations:
1. Analytical error--The employer/contracting party fails to understand the distinction between rights fixed ex ante pursuant to national copyright law and the contractual arrangements reached consensually by the parties with respect to ownership. As a result, it conflates these two different issues within the framework of the clause, resulting in a distorted form of contractual belt and braces. 
2. Inertia--The U.S. party replicates the clause used for an agreement where both parties are American (whether or not the clause is even appropriate here is still an open question--see above) to a situation where the work is created outside of America, without giving sufficient thought to the difference between these two circumstances. 
3. Mea culpa--My analysis above is incorrect, and in fact the clause is appropriate as a matter of both contract law as well as the application of U.S. copyright law to the circumstances.
Thoughts anyone?

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Wednesday whimsies

Don't like how IP is handled elsewhere? If you have not yet participated in the third Taylor Wessing Global Intellectual Property Index survey, there's still time to do so. You get a chance to say which of the 20+ selected jurisdictions run their IP administration and litigation, and which are, welll, dodos.  Click PatLit here for further details.


Free trial still on offer.  This is not the cost of a legal trial, however.  Oxford University Press's monthly Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (JIPLP) is still offering, for the last few days, free access.  All you need to do is to enter a trial code. To set yourself up to avail yourself of this golden opportunity, simply click through to the instructions page and the rest should be easy.  If you can't be bothered. you can still get some idea what the journal's like by dipping into some of the content which is made available at no cost via its associated jiplp weblog here. STOP PRESS: there doesn't seem to be a code any more. The Kat will investigate on his return from Madrid.




Meanwhile, let us celebrate the fact that Oxford University Press --which is part of the University -- has charitable objectives.  This means partly that it can give publications away to worthy educational causes, and also that it can make some jolly generous discounts when it has its winter sale.  Books on offer at up to 75% off the regular price can be found here.  They include the Associate's Guide to the Practice of Copyright Law, which this Kat thought, when reviewing it for another blog, was very handy for non-US readers.


PatLit's latest PCC Page -- the 17th in the series -- asks whether a business which is suing for IP infringement in the Patents County Court for England and Wales might find that it is the victim of its own success, in that this makes the dispute too big, in terms of value, to qualify for the court's jurisdiction. To find out more, click here.


Ever wondered what happens to works once they enter the public domain? If so, there's a seminar just for you.  On the afternoon of Wednesday 23 March the 1709 Blog is happy to host a talk on exactly that subject by American live-wire academic Paul J. Heald.  While the details and the venue (somewhere in London) remain to confirmed, just email here, with the subject line 'Heald Seminar', if you'd like to attend.


The MARQUES Winter Meeting takes place tomorrow and Friday in Madrid. IPKat team member Jeremy will be there -- and he will be writing the event up on the MARQUES Class 46 weblog. But don't worry, there will still be plenty to read on this blog too ...

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Mr Tumpy is alive and his caravan is kicking

Noddy, Enid Blyton's most famous
creation, had the exclusive right to
provide taxi services in Toytown ...
"Unknown Enid Blyton story found" is the startling headline of the Press Association release that stunned the world with news of the chance finding of an unpublished novel by the creator of Noddy, The Famous Five, the Secret Seven, Malory Towers and  a generation of unashamedly politically incorrect "we-read-Noddy-and-it-didn't-do-us-any-harm" adults -- the infamous Enid Blyton.  The media release explains:
"Mr Tumpy's Caravan, an 180-page fantasy story thought to have been unknown previously, was found among a collection of manuscripts auctioned in September. The Seven Stories children's book centre in Newcastle paid around £40,000 for the haul .... Archivist Hannah Green then discovered the unpublished work, which follows the adventures of a caravan with feet and mind of its own [The feet are a novelty. Anyone who has tried driving with a caravan in tow will already know that it has a mind of its own]. 
A spokeswoman for the centre said: "... It's a very clean manuscript with no spelling mistakes." [Merpel's not surprised. The Enid Blyton stories she's read also didn't have any spelling mistakes. Ms B knew her limitations and didn't risk using difficult words she might have got wrong]. The manuscript was initially believed to be a version of a picture book called Mr Tumpy and His Caravan, which was compiled using comic strips, but the Enid Blyton Society confirmed it appeared to be a completely different book. 
Imogen Smallwood, Blyton's youngest daughter, told BBC News: 
"It's a whole book, written with words, about a completely different Mr Tumpy and indeed a completely different caravan ...".
Enid Blyton died in November 1968, says the IPKat, so this work, being unpublished at the time of her death, will remain copyright-protected in the UK till the end of 2039 (thanks, Graham Cornish, for the correction!). But what intrigues him is the close similarity between the two titles of two apparently entirely different stories.  Merpel's not surprised: she points out that William Shakespeare did exactly the same thing with his plays.  The storyline in Henry IV Part I is totally different from Henry IV Part II, but after a new sniffs of the old catnip you can hardly spot the difference at all ...

IP enforcement in verse: the best limericks

The IPKat's competition for which the prize was complimentary admission to next month's IP Enforcement Conference ground to a miserable halt when the conference sadly had to be cancelled. The limericks, however, are of some substantial interest and some of them deserve an airing on this weblog.

Andy Clemson (Senior Assistant, Cleveland) was closely focused on trade mark matters. Thus his two entries ran as follows:
“I have an infringed mark” he did claim;
And he had some defendants to name;
So he sought an injunction;
And costs in conjunction;
And success! The court found them to blame.

A third party was using his mark;
So, on a court case he chose to embark;
To seek the endorsement;
Of the mark for enforcement;
But the claim was misfiled by the clerk.
It's not known whether Andy Clemson knows Mary Smillie (Associate, Bird & Bird), but the first of her offerings makes an allusion to him:
There was a young lady called Mandy
Who bought a bag from the market - it was handy,
Her friends thought - she's rich
A Louis Vuitton - what a bitch
Until arrested by an officer called Andy.
But the IPKat preferred this attempt from her:
There was a Customs fellah from Dover
Who checked imported goods over
He looked in each box
Compared the goods with his docs
And confiscated the fake Kat called Rover!
Lindesay Low (Legal Adviser, Legal Affairs Department, Scotch Whisky Association) might have been reflecting on the Philips and Nokia references to the Court of Justice when she penned this:
A container of fake Chinese brands,
Fell right into Customs’ hands,
Did they seize it? Oh, no
They just let it go
It was destined for far away lands!
From Henry Ward (8 New Square) comes this epic, which he names "A Cautionary Tale – Part 44"
There was a young man from Manila,
Who’d scored all the music to “Thriller”.
When the bootlegs came out,
He feared that he’d get nowt,
So he took out a quick Anton Piller.

The search order did its main function,
At a warehouse just by Clapham Junction.
Knock-off discs in a heap,
Were found in the sweep,
And our hero he got his injunction.

The trial itself took quite a while,
As his Silk had a ponderous style,
But a week was enough,
To wade through all the stuff,
And our man got his Judgment on file.

All was quite well or so you would think,
And the crooks were all locked in the clink,
But then came the fees,
“OH MY GOD, they’re WHAT? JEEZ!”
“They’re enough to make Donald Trump blink!”

The amounts that were owed were absurd,
They worked out at some nine quid a word,
And what he recouped,
From the “jackpot” he’d scooped,
Was a quarter of what he’d incurred.

“Well I know just how Pyrrhus did feel”
Said our man at the thought of appeal,
“If there’d just been a cap,
To get round this trap,
Well I’d not have had such a raw deal.”

So there is just one moral you see,
Though us fee-earners may disagree,
To keep hold of your purse,
Go to HHJ Birss!
Transfer it to the new PCC ...
The Kat ventures to suggest that the Part 44 in the title might be this one.

Next up is Helen Thomas-Peter (Registered Trade Mark Attorney, Walker Morris), who offers us this:
The doughty ex-coppers from FACT
Are blessed with extraordinary tact
But those that they raid
Should be rightly afraid
'Cause they'll use the full force of the Act.
To conclude this  little selection, here's a couple of tasteful creations, sent in by a talented reader who is clearly under-challenged by the duties imposed by his employment in examining applications for registration of a well-known intellectual property right and whose identity, for that reason, is best kept anonymous (nb these limericks are not connected):
Last week HM Customs in Hull
Had a week far from dull.
They seized a few loads
Of counterfeit toads
And fed them to their mascot seagull.

A patrol of the border police
On their beat between Turkey and Greece
Caught a load full of fakes
But when they had to go to the Jakes
They found the goods infested with fleas.
Henry's the winner!  But now the IPKat will have to negotiate an alternative prize ...

This little PGI went ... all the way to the European Commission

Left in the oven for too long, Cornish
Pasties can become quite volatile
The IPKat does not normally disturb the peace of this zone of the blogosphere with news of the grant of protected legal status to geographical indications; he leaves that task to the MARQUES Class 46 weblog, which has broken the news of fresh GI Regulations at regular intervals over the past couple of years. However, he has just heard the news (which is a good deal fresher than the last Cornish Pasty he sampled) that the designation CORNISH PASTY has today received Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) status by means of a Commission Regulation which has not yet been published online.  The Cornish Pasty Association (CPA), which has been campaigning for PGI status for the past nine years, is ecstatic.  According to Sky,
"The CPA says a Cornish pasty is characterised by its "distinctive 'D' shape" and by "being crimped on one side, never on top". 
The filling should be chunky with no less than 12.5% meat, potato, swede, onion and a light seasoning. 
As for the pastry, the casing must be "golden in colour, savoury, glazed with milk or egg and robust enough to retain its shape throughout the cooking and cooling process without splitting or cracking". 
Britain now has 43 protected products, with Cornish Clotted Cream, Melton Mowbray pork pies and Arbroath Smokies among the others".
This Kat has spent his entire adult life using the term "Cornish pasty" as a generic term and will not find it easy to adjust to life under the new regime.  What, he wonders, is the new generic term for a substance which in the past has been so termed but has now been excluded?

More on Cornish pasties here
Web definitions of Cornish pasty here and here
Cornish pasty recipes here, here, here, here and here
1984 Newspeak here

Patents: some light reading for a rainy day

This post features four very different recent publications in the field of patents.  If you are going on (i) a long journey, (ii) a short journey on the London Underground system or (iii) any journey at all which involves you having to pass through any British Airport Authority air terminal when all flights in and out of London have been grounded by the turbulent effect of butterflies flapping their cute little wings in Tuvalu, you may want to read them all, one after the other.  If you are more selective, discerning or (as we lawyers like to say) specialised, one or two only will suffice.  The four books are:


* Figures of Invention: a History of Modern Patent Law, by academics Alain Pottage and Brad Sherman and published by Oxford University Press.  Based in London but presumably not stuck in transit, Alain Pottage is a Reader in Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science, just down the road from this Kat's Holborn office, while Brad Sherman, now Professor of Law at the Griffith University, Brisbane, was formerly attached to the same institution.  According to the publisher,

"Taking the invention as its object of study, this book develops a radical new perspective on the making of modern patent law. It develops an extended historical and conceptual exploration of the invention in modern patent law. Focusing primarily on the figures that make inventions material, and on how to overcome the intangibility of ideas, this intellectually challenging book makes explicit a dimension of patent law that is not commonly found in traditional commentaries, treatises and cases.

The story is told from the perspective of the material media in which the intangible form of the invention is made visible; namely, models, texts, drawings, and biological specimens [This makes it conceptually stimulating to read, which is what the authors intend, but correspondingly a bit tricky to use as a conventional patent reference work]. This approach brings to light for the first time some essential formative moments in the history of patent law. For example, Figures of Invention describes the central role that scale models played in the making of nineteenth-century patent jurisprudence, the largely mythical character of the nineteenth-century theory that patents texts should function as a means of disclosing inventions [hang on there, some readers still believe this theory -- and it's more credible than Santa existing or Elvis still being alive ...!], and the profound conceptual changes that emerged from debates as to how to represent and disclose the first biological inventions [this has repercussions even now: we can ask whether the Budapest Treaty on the Deposit Microorganisms is still fit for purpose]. At the same time, this historical inquiry also reveals the basic conceptual architecture of modern patent law. The story of how inventions were represented is also the story of the formation of the modern concept of invention, or of the historical processes that shaped the terms in which patent lawyers still apprehend the intangible form of the invention.

Although the analysis focuses on the history of patent law in the United States, it develops themes that illuminate the evolution of patent regimes in Europe [In this regard, the US is the sun to Europe's moon. Europe reflects events and debates which are earlier and usually more articulately expressed in the US]. In combining close historical analysis with broad thematic reflection, Figures of Invention makes a distinctive contribution both to the field of patent law scholarship and to emerging interdisciplinary debates about the constitution of patent law and of intellectual property in general. ".
The IPKat enjoyed this book, and its approach, which he happily commends to anyone who already knows a bit about patent law and wants a book that will enhance his understanding without in any sense intimidating him.  The book is almost too short, since it almost leaves the reader wanting to know what happens next. Some of the footnotes are naughtily long and contain content which might, on reconsideration, be of sufficient importance to promote above the line, but that does nothing to detract from the pleasure of reading this work.

Bibliographic data: Hardback, xi + 212 pages.  ISBN 978-0-19-959563-1. Price: £70. web page here.  Rupture factor: none.


* Rules of Patent Drafting: Guidelines from Federal Circuit Case Law, by Joseph E. Root, is also published by Oxford University Press but, unlike Pottage and Sherman, this tome emanates from OUP's busy, bustling, practice-oriented New York desk.  The author set up his own company, QualiPat, to develop an innovative programme for teaching patent drafting and has had the personal satisfaction of being able to implement that programme with UnitedLex, a legal consulting, technology and outsourcing firm, where he created a team from a group of engineers.  But does this book give personal satisfaction too?  Says the publisher's blurb:

"Patents are invalidated every day for reasons often stemming from avoidable error [Isn't that what judges are for?]  Rules of Patent Drafting: Guidelines from Federal Circuit Case Law helps patent drafters avoid such errors with a set of patent drafting rules derived from Federal Circuit decisions. By focusing on drafting principles, instead of abstract legal concepts, the reader gains a coherent, integrated understanding of what the Federal Circuit requires. The rules point the way to confident drafting.

Rules of Patent Drafting: Guidelines from Federal Circuit Case Law addresses a major development in patent law over the last two decades - the Disclosure Revolution. Claim construction now depends more on support from the specification than any other factor, and other determinants of validity have followed suit [Can this be the "the largely mythical character of the nineteenth-century theory that patents texts should function as a means of disclosing inventions" to which Pottage and Sherman allude?] Written description, the doctrine of equivalents, and definiteness, all look to the specification to determine the application of each of these doctrines, and others as well. This book guides the drafter in meeting all the requirements that the Federal Circuit has set out for patent validity. Beyond demonstrating how to ensure bare validity, the book goes further to illustrate techniques for achieving desired coverage through rules teaching breadth in drafting, claiming, and prosecuting [Breadth is not for the faint-hearted -- woe to the applicant whose claims run wider than his invention!]

The rules-based approach to patent drafting provides a clear framework to assist both the beginner and the experienced practitioner [and you have the comfort of telling your client, if anything goes wrong, that it's not your fault because you kept to the rules]. A learner is guided through the facets of a rule piece by piece, looking to the Federal Circuit rationale for each clause. Seasoned drafters can quickly update themselves or clarify specific points with precision. For either reader, the clear exposition communicates essential information rapidly and thoroughly".
Says the IPKat, this helpful book saves the best bits for the end.  The last 100 pages or so are taken up with an extensive section on Avoiding Problems which is worth a read on its own, both for its functional utility and for its practical and realistic appraisal of the specific issues of inventorship and priority regarding which the unique provisions of US law are apt to seem so puzzling to the rest-of-the-worldies who might be reading it.  The author also reminds readers that the appropriate time to address problems is before they happen -- a piece of advice that readers might do well to carry with them beyond the portals of patent law and into the great wide world that lurks beyond it.

Bibliographic data: Paperback, xxxvi + 477 pages. ISBNs 13: 9780199734924 and 10: 0199734925. Price: $225. Book's web page here.  Rupture factor: none.


* DON'T File a Patent! is a book of passion, enthusiasm and of an unquenchable determination to persuade the reader of the virtues of the author's case.  The author, John D. Smith of Orlando, Florida, is no admirer of the patent system.  He is witty, knowledgeable and quick to identify faults in the ponderous patchwork of bureaucratic and professional practices which is the US patent system today.  While the comments contained in this self-published book are directed at the US system, readers from other jurisdictions may easily recognise the applicability of the author's barbs to targets nearer home.


How does the author characterise his book?  He explains in his own words:

"DON’T File a Patent! is the first and only book that shows you why NOT to file a patent application on your invention. In this book, you will learn that the Patents Office wants the inventor’s money, not their invention. You will see the roadblocks the Patents Office uses to discourage inventors with their repeated Patent Office patent application rejections. These Patent Office patent application rejections require inventors to continually re-submit their patent application and pay thousands in additional government filing fees, before their patent application are ultimately turned down.

Inventors who create innovative intellectual property like patents, trademarks and copyrights are told by their patent attorney or patent lawyer that they should protect their intellectual property rights and secure patent protection by doing a patent search and then file a patent application and a trademark application.

In this book, I’ll give you over 10 reasons why you should NOT file a Patent Application on your invention. You’ll learn that Utility Patents and patent protection are worthless and does not stop someone from copying your invention. You’ll learn that a patent attorney or patent lawyer will encourage inventors to file patent infringement lawsuits for the patent attorney benefit, not
to benefit the inventor or his invention. You’ll learn that infringement lawsuits are very expensive and the only one that will make money in a patent infringement lawsuit will be your patent attorney. You’ll see that Judgments gained as a result of expensive patent infringement litigation are worthless, as they are impossible to collect. You’ll understand that if you are a successful inventor or inventors and you have a successful invention or inventions, you will get ripped off by copycat competitors, as this is a sign of your invention success.

In addition to the truth about the terrible way you’ll be treated by the Patent Office, I’ll also share with you many experiences I have had over the last five years. I’ll describe and give you contact information for several other inventors and entrepreneurs that got a trademark on their brand name and are making and selling their products themselves, as you should be doing. ..."
The author's weapons do not consist solely of rage and indignation. He is no stranger to humour, as "A day at the Patent Office with Elaine Patenthosen (No patent examiners were harmed in the making of this parody video)" testifies. A successful inventor in his own right (details here), his words go straight to the heart.  The approach which he advocates is, the IPKat hastens to add, not one which is equally applicable to all inventions under all circumstances --  it may be particularly unsuitable for processes and for inventions that have no independent life of their own but are merely incremental add-ons to existing products.  However, for the one-patent-product scenario his advice makes a lot of sense and will be welcomed by small and some medium-sized enterprises which either can't afford patents at all or, if they get them, lack the financial and emotional resources to enforce them.


Bibliographic data: Book's website here. No risk of rupture, but don't read this if you're a patent attorney who is susceptible to apoplexy.  Price: US$ 24.95 plus packaging and posting which, as the author observes, "will cost you less than 10% of a 1 hour consultation with a patent attorney or patent lawyer" (available at the same price as an e-book).


* Terrell on the Law of Patents (17th Edition, 2011), is now edited by Richard Miller QC, Guy Burkill QC, His Honour Judge Birss QC and Douglas Campbell (all from Three New Square).  This book has been through the doldrums in its time, but successive editions since the 1970s have made it a much more useful book.  a tendency to paraphrase the relevant statute and then footnote the paraphrased provision has given way to some genuinely instructive guidance on the operation of the UK's Patents Act 1977 (as frequently amended), the most important decisions of the European Patent Office's variously-shaped Boards of Appeal and the indigenous judicial rulings and practice directions of the British courts and the UK Intellectual Property Office. 

It's difficult to introduce to readers a title which has been going since 1884 and which is familiar even to many folk who have never read it, so let's investigate the state of the current edition.  According to publishers Sweet & Maxwell, this edition has some new features:

"* Thoroughly revised and updated, with new or expanded discussion throughout of numerous current topics and recent developments in the law of patents;
* New chapters dedicated to Entitlement, to Supplementary Protection Certificates, and to the Person Skilled in the Art;
* Extensively expanded discussion of Validity issues, including major chapters now separately dedicated to Novelty, Obviousness, and Insufficiency:
* Incorporates discussion of all significant recent case law including the House of Lords decisions in Lundbeck v Generics and Conor v Angiotech, and the EPO Enlarged Board cases G2/08 and G3/08".
The IPKat couldn't bring himself to read this tome from cover to cover -- and noone would believe him if he said he did.  Has however found himself doing some sampling while using Terrell for some recent research, and found it to be crisp, current and accurate in all material respects.  He can predict with confidence that, like its ever-improving competitor The Modern Law of Patents (here), this title will run and run.

Bibliographic data: Hardback, with more Latin and Arabic pagination than this Kat can wave a paw at. ISBN: 9781847039033. Price £325 (nb there is no missing decimal point in that figure, but local delivery is free).  Web page here. Rupture factor: severe.

Monday, February 21, 2011

Rocky time for Rockwool

Building solutions manufacturer Kingspan Group plc has just won a trade mark and advertising dispute against Rockwool Limited. According to a press release from Wragge & Co., who acted for the victorious company, Mr Justice Kitchin, in the Chancery Division of the High Court (England and Wales) found that a series of Rockwool demonstrations and video recordings, which compared the fire performance of Kingspan and Rockwool products, was misleading and failed to comply with the Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive. The judge also ruled that Rockwool took unfair advantage of Kingspan's trade marks, causing damage to its reputation, but dismissed Kingspan's malicious falsehood claim.

The judgment, [2011] EWHC 250 (Ch), has been posted on BAILII here and the IPKat hasn't yet had the chance to read it (it's 251 paragraphs in length), The Kat will revert to this case when the opportunity occurs -- though a swift glance suggests that most of the judgment consists of a painstaking analysis of the facts, but not too much legal argument.

Rockwool here
Stone sheep here
Kingspan here
Kingspeech here
Kingspeach here