• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

England and Wales High Court (Patents Court) Decisions

Tate & Lyle Technology Ltd v Freres

Problems of obesity and diabetes are high on the international agenda in the developed world. In consequence the market for low calorie foods is one of the fastest growing sectors of the food processing industry. Thus the industry requires sugar substitutes. This case concerns a sugar substitute called maltitol. Until the 1980s maltitol was only available in commercial quantities in the form of a syrup. In the 1980s various techniques were developed for the industrial production of anhydrous maltitol crystals from the maltitol syrup. The patent in suit concerns the crystallisation of maltitol, and in particular two different shapes of maltitol crystal, described in the patent in suit as "bipyramidal" and "prismatic". What it claims is that a by-product of the maltitol production process, called maltotriitol, can be used to modify or control the shape that the crystals take. As granted in the EPO, the patent in suit had 10 claims. However it was opposed in 2003. As a result of the opposition the Opposition Division of the EPO decided that nine of the 10 claims were invalid on the ground that they were not new. The remaining claim (formerly claim 10) was allowed to remain, but in a modified form. Tate & Lyle (which did not participate in the opposition in the EPO) say that the remaining claim is also invalid, with the result that the patent should be revoked.

Held that the patent is invalid because it is not new; and also because it claims an unpatentable discovery. The patent must therefore be revoked.

• CRIMINAL

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

R v Daniel James

Daniel James is 46 years old. He was born in Iran, and came to the United Kingdom as a teenager. In 1986 he became a British citizen, and so he held both British and Iranian nationality. In 1987 he joined Territorial Army and signed the Official Secrets Act. In March 2006 he was sent to serve in Afghanistan as an interpreter with the British forces attached to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). From May 2006 he acted as an interpreter for General Richards, the Commanding Officer of ISAF who was based in Kabul. His role was to act as interpreter at meetings and to translate documents and speeches. He did not have direct access to the most sensitive of General Richards' work but he was in a unique position to overhear operational and strategic information.

To begin with his conduct was satisfactory, but before long there was a decline in the standards of discipline. He was dissatisfied with his rank of corporal, and felt that he should have been promoted. That was the background to the offence of which he was convicted on 5th November 2008 in the Central Criminal Court before Roderick Evans J, that on 2nd November 2006, for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, he communicated to another person information that was calculated to be or might or was intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy. On 28 November he was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, and an appropriate order was made under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The court has a duty to those members of the Armed Forces risking life and health and safety through loyal service to the interests of this country to provide such protection as can be provided in the fortunately very rare cases indeed of possible treachery from those working alongside them and who are treated as trusted colleagues. The sentence imposed after the trial in this case was not manifestly excessive. In our judgment it properly reflected the deterrent element which necessarily must govern every sentencing decision in cases of treachery.

For these reasons this appeal against sentence was dismissed.