Public Domain in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • EPI Environmental Technologies Inc. and Another v Symphony Plastic Technologies Plc and Another
    • Chancery Division
    • 21 Diciembre 2004
    “

    In my judgment, what Lord Denning is saying is that a recipient of mixed information should take care only to use the public information. If he uses the private information he can only do so on pain of payment. Obviously the easiest way to establish that only public information has been obtained is to go to the public sources.

    Relying on Seager, Mr Hobbs QC submits by the provision of the additive itself EPI provided that product in confidence and that product and that provision in that way was confidential private information which Symphony could not use.

    If there is something secret or confidential which they thereby merely copied that would be actionable. However, a thing does not become confidential merely because it is supplied confidentially. Suppose EPI supplied Symphony with a formula for making a very special cake which would be very unique to EPI. A lot of the ingredients would be common ingredients, but it would be contended that the resultant product is arrived at by use of the secret formula.

  • Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Bomac Laboratories Ltd
    • Privy Council
    • 04 Mayo 2006
    “

  • Hilton v Barker Booth & Eastwood (A Firm)
    • House of Lords
    • 03 Febrero 2005
    “

    Mr Gibson submitted that a solicitor who has conflicting duties to two clients may not prefer one to another. This may involve performing one duty to the letter of the obligation, and paying compensation for his failure to perform the other. But in any case the fact that he has chosen to put himself in an impossible position does not exonerate him from liability.

  • The Good Law Project v Minister for the Cabinet Office
    • Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court)
    • 09 Junio 2021
    “

    The fact that individuals at Public First were known to and had worked with those involved in the decision making, including the Defendant and Mr Cummings, is insufficient to establish apparent bias. Having regard to the specialised nature of the public policy and communications research industry, it is unsurprising that those involved might have developed professional and/or personal friendships over the years working within government departments.

    However, the existence of personal connections between the Defendant, Mr Cummings and the directors of Public First was a relevant circumstance that might be perceived to compromise their impartiality and independence in the context of a public procurement.

See all results
Legislation
  • The Export Control Order 2008
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 2008
    ... ... in the public domain ... ...
  • Digital Economy Act 2010
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 2010
    ... ... copyright and performers' rights; to make provision about internet domain registries; to make provision about the functions of the Channel Four ... ; to amend the Video Recordings Act 1984; to make provision about public lending right in relation to electronic publications; and for connected ... ...
  • The Competition Act 1998 (Vertical Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 2022
    ... ... using a domain name corresponding to a geographical area other than the one in which the ... participating in a public procurement exercise undertaken in accordance with— ... ...
  • The Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 2023
    ... ... to the President of Belarus; (b) a head or deputy head of any public body, service or committee subordinate to the President of Belarus or the ... (ii) patent applications, ... (b) in the public domain, ... (c) a medical device, or ... (d) used for basic scientific ... ...
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results