Douglas Campbell
Called to the Bar 1993
Douglas is a member of the Attorney General's B Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown. He has been consistently ranked as a leading junior by both Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners
in relation to both intellectual property and information technology law. The 2009-2010 edition of the
Legal 500 says: "Fiercely intelligent ... he works at a high rate of knots without diluting his
quality ... He is one of the best IP juniors, but can turn his hand to technology disputes with seamless
ease". Chambers UK 2010 edition says "Douglas Campbell demonstrates 'an impressive grasp of the
complications to be found in the technology area,' with observers noting that 'he can talk at the same level
as the client.' 'Very good at cutting to the quick,' he provides succinct and commercial advice, as was
recently seen when he acted for InterDigital in one of its cases against Nokia ... He is praised
by solicitors for both his understanding of the time pressures that law firms are under and his
knowledge and technical expertise.”
Practice Areas
Patent, trade mark/passing off, copyright, designs, confidential information, and all other aspects of
intellectual property; information technology and computing. Industries covered include
electronics, software, television information systems, satellite television, MP3 players, DVD,
telecommunications (telecoms), pharmaceuticals, animal health, oil exploration and production, shipping,
mechanical engineering, databases, food products, and many consumer products. Experience includes taking evidence
abroad for use in the UK and vice versa.
Education
•Dollar Academy, Dollar, Scotland 1976-1984.
•Scholarship at Hertford College, Oxford University, 1984-88. First Class honours in Chemistry with
Distinction in Quantum Chemistry; also placed proxime accessit to the Gibbs prize. Turbott University
prize for practical work in Organic Chemistry.
•City University, Diploma in Law, awarded top distinction, 1991-92, Inner Temple Major Scholarship,
Duke of Edinburgh Scholarship.
•Council of Legal Education Bar Vocational Course; 1992-93, Maadak prize for European Community
Competition Law.
•Pegasus Scholar at Mallesons Stephen Jaques, Solicitors, Melbourne, Australia, from
November 1996-February 1997.
Personal interests
• Gap year 1990-91 teaching English in Kagoshima, Japan; awarded brown belt in full-contact karate; prize winner in prefectural karate tournament for best performance, though losing to a former sumo wrestler; passed Japanese Government language proficiency test (6000 words/1000 characters level).
• Governor, the Contemporary Dance Trust.
Publications
•Contributing author to Terrell on Patents (ed. Richard Miller QC) 15th and 16th editions; European Patent Litigation Handbook (ed. Brian Reid), both Sweet & Maxwell.
Notable and recent cases
Patent
•Red Spider v Omega [2010] EWHC 59 (water injection valves for oil industry, entitlement to
priority)
•Gemstar v Virgin [2009] EWHC 3068 (computer software, presentation of information)
•TNS v Neilsen [2009] EWHC 1160
(propriety of bringing UK patent proceedings so as to influence other European courts)
•Belvac Production Machinery Inc v Carnaudmetalbox Engineering Ltd [2009] EWHC 292;
patent validity, infringement;
•Sony, Philips v Alba, Amino (Patents Court, 2008) action on 14 patents
belonging to the MPEG LA patent portfolio (MPEG-2 standard for DVD and digital television)
•Nokia v InterDigital, Patents Court, 2008, mobile phones, standards, essentiality
•Vector v Glatt [2007] RPC 12, [2007] EWCA (Civ) 805 (CA);
amendment, added matter, and insufficiency
•SanDisk v. Phillips [2006] EWHC 3100 (Pat),
[2006] EWCH 2692 (Pat); MP3 Players; declaration of essentiality with respect to industry standards,
added matter
•Edwards Lifesciences v Cook Biotech Inc. [2008] EWHC 1899, 1900; confidentiality;
independently valid claims
•Eli Lilly v Neopharma, Neolab [2008] EWHC 358; interim injunctions, disclosure of
customer names
•Ultraframe v Eurocell [2006] EWHC 1344 (Pat); damages enquiry,
damages for loss of market position, reasonable royalty
•CFPH’s applications [2006] RPC 5;
patentability of computer software and business methods
•Forticrete v Lafarge [2005] EWHC 3024;
commercial success, right to continue prior use
•Coflexip v Stena Offshore [2004] FSR 34, CA;
estoppel and damages
•Xtralite (Rooflights) Ltd v Hartington Conway [2004] RPC 7, [2004]
RPC 137; estoppel, correct approach to patent appeals
•3M’s International
Patent Application [2003] RPC 28, [2003] RPC 541; patent entitlement, joint ownership
•Stena
v Irish Ferries [2002] RPC 990, [2003] RPC 668 (CA), [2003] RPC 668, the leading case on the
special exception under s60(5) of the Patents Act 1977
•Asahi v Macopharma [2002] EWCA Civ
466, CA, correct approach to assessing inventive step
•Arjo v Liko (2002)
IPD January 25006, effect of previous Patents Court decision on same patents
•Icon
Health and Fitness v Precise Exercise Equipment (2001) IPD 24054, declarations of non-infringement
•Marshalltown Trowel v CEKA Works [2001] FSR 633, taking evidence abroad for use in UK proceedings
Trade mark
•Unilever v British National Party (High Court, 2010) use of Marmite name and logo in political election broadcast; interim injunction
•Hasbro v 123 Nahrmittel GmbH (High Court, 2010) "Play-Doh" trade mark vs "The Edible Play Dough", interim injunction, descriptive use, honest practices in industrial and commercial matters
•Birds Eye v Northern Foods (High Court, 2010) "Better than Birds Eye"; food industry, labelling regulations, use of competitor's trade marks in comparative advertising; interim injunction
•MSC v MSC Europe (High Court, 2009) community trade marks, shipping industry, Article 111 defence under CTMR
•Cellestis v Oxford Immunotec (High Court, 2009) medical testing kits, use of competitor's trade marks in comparative advertising
•Burberry v Southover (High Court, 2008) counterfeiting
•Knoll AG’s trade mark [2003] RPC 175, [2003] RPC 681,"bad faith" and over-broad specifications
•Proctor & Gamble v Wisdom Toothbrushes (2002) IPD 25012, interim injunctions on new products
•D Green & Co (Stoke Newington) v Regalzone [2002] ETMR 22, CA, partly descriptive, partly distinctive marks; nature of descriptive use
•PAG v Hawk-Woods Limited [2002] FSR 46; summary judgment, use of mark to denote intended purpose of goods
•Decon Laboratories v Fred Baker Scientific [2001] RPC 293, over-broad specifications, consequences for infringement
•Raleigh International trade mark [2001] RPC 202, relationship between similarity of goods and similarity of marks with respect to likelihood of confusion
Copyright
•Unilever v British National Party (High Court, 2010) use of Marmite name and logo in political election broadcast; interim injunction
•Harrison v Streetwise, Patents County Court, 2010, moral rights (derogatory treatment, false attribution)
•Telkom v Manor, High Court, 2009, copyright in sales brochures, conversion
•Aston Martin Lagonda v CLF technologies, High Court, 2008, copyright in source code
•Weight to Go v Bowater, High Court, 2008 ex-employee removing a quantity of copyright material,
injunction granted
•Royal Mail Group v i-CD Publishing [2004] ECDR 18, copyright proctection for databases before and
after the Database Directive
•Lambretta v Teddy Smith (UK) [2003] RPC 41, relationship between copyright and design right
as regards fashion clothing, surface decoration
Registered design
•Nike v Outlook Sports (High Court, 2006); community registered design, prior use (golf
clubs)
•Oakley Inc v Animal [2004] EWHC 1303 (Ch); sunglasses, extent
of disclosure obligation with respect to pleadings
•Thermos v Aladdin [2002] FSR 11 (CA), vacuum flasks, degree of protection for striking design,
role of expert evidence
Design right
•Red Spider v Omega, [2010] EWHC 59 (water injection valves for oil industry, method or principle of construction
•Plum Products v Tube Plastics (High Court, 2009) interim injunction relating to design right in trampoline surrounds
•Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd v Tunnard [2006] FSR 41, [2007] FSR 16, CA; employee's fiduciary
obligations and duty of fidelity, ownership of intellectual property created whilst employed
•Dyson v Qualtex [2005] RPC 19, [2006] EWCA Civ 166 (CA), vacuum cleaners, degree of protection
given to spare parts, terms of design right protection, must-fit and must-match exceptions
•Ultraframe v Eurocell (Disclosure) [2005] FSR 2, disclosure obligation in design right cases,
"commonplace designs"
•Lambretta v Teddy Smith (UK) [2003] RPC 41, relationship between copyright and design right as
regards fashion clothing, surface decoration
Passing off
•Unilever v British National Party (High Court, 2010) use of Marmite name and logo in political election broadcast; interim injunction
•Strip Limited v Strip Pte [2009] EWHC 2070 interim injunction to restrain
foreign-owned waxing salon entering UK market
•B Sky B v Reynolds (High Court, 2008) £15 million damages enquiry for passing off
•MedGen v Passion for Life Products [2001] FSR 496, ownership of goodwill between
UK distributor and foreign manufacturer
Breach of Confidence
•Microtek Medical v Shipley, High Court, 2009, interim injunction to restrain
breach of confidence in relation to customer price information
•Aston Martin Lagonda v CLF technologies, High Court, 2008 (breach of confidence
in source code)
•Weight to Go v Bowater, High Court, 2008 ex-employee removing a quantity of confidential material,
injunction granted
Databases
•B Sky B v Nationwide Digital Satellite Warranty Services Limited, High Court, 2010 (database of Sky subscribers; search order)
•Nominet v Francis-Macrae, High Court, 2004 (mining the database of Nominet,
the UK internet naming agency, so as to send out unauthorised renewal invoices)
•Royal Mail Group v i-CD Publishing [2004] ECDR 18, database right in the
Royal Mail's Postcode Address File
Information technology cases
•Seiko Epson v Medea, 2009 (printers and print cartridges)
•Phillips, Sony, Samsung et al v Alba, Amino, 2008 (the "MPEG-2 patent portfolio", which relates inter alia to DVD and digital television technology)
•CTI Group v British Telecom 2007 (telephone billing systems)
•SanDisk v Phillips, Sony, et al, 2006 (the "MPEG-1 patent portfolio", which relates inter alia to MP3 players)
•Essex Business and Careers Partnership v Microdec, 2003, dispute between local enterprise authority and IT supplier re telecoms
•Glass’s Guide v Logica, 2003, whether negligent/breach of contract to recommend Oracle software where relevant module not yet commercialised, quantum of damages
•Anker Systems v Jawad, 2002, Point of Sale software for a chain of fashion stores
•Frontline Technology v Rushton et al, 2001, wireless school attndance monitoring system
European Patent Office cases
•University of Greenwich's application (restitutio in integrum); Board of Appeal
•EP 1 475 024 (Thomas Daniels Jr.) entitled "Beverage Mixer", Opposition Division
•EP 0 670 870 (Ameron, Inc) entitled “Polysiloxane coating”; Board of Appeal
•EP 0 848 846 (ODS Technologies, LP) entitled “Interactive wagering systems and processes”; Board of Appeal
•EP No. 0 359 358 (in the name of Showa Aluminium KK) entitled “A condenser”; Opposition Division, and Board of Appeal
•EP No. 0 595 601 (Showa Aluminium KK) entitled “Brazeable aluminium material and a method of producing same”; Opposition Division, and Board of Appeal
•EP 0 219 974 (Modine Manufacturing Company) entitled “Condenser with small hydraulic diameter flow path”; Opposition Division, and Board of Appeal
•EP 0 517 702 (Stanley Rokicki) entitled “Pultruded Fibreglass Framing Sections”; Opposition Division
•EP 840 893 (Cohesive Technologies) entitled “Highly Efficient Liquid Chromatography Process and Chromatographic Apparatus therefor” Opposition Division, and Board of Appeal
•EP 710074 (Unilever plc) entitled “Ice Confections”, Board of Appeal
•EP 328257 (Optical Coating Laboratory Inc) entitled “Magnetron sputtering apparatus and process”, Board of Appeal
•EP 0 732 101 (Deprenyl Animal Health) entitled “Use of L-deprenyl for retarding age dependent deterioration of the immune system function in mammals”; Opposition Division, and Board of Appeal
•EP 0 473 252 (Deprenyl Animal Health) entitled “Use of L-deprenyl for retarding deterioration due to aging”, Opposition Division, and Board of Appeal
•EP 779809 (Deprenyl Animal Health) entitled “Use of Selegiline to prolong life span”; Examination Division
•EP 0623344 (Ceva Sante Animale) entitled “Use of Selegiline in veterinary medicine”; Opposition Division
•EP 728014 (Prodigene, Inc) entitled “Vaccines expressed in plants” Board of Appeal
Franchising
•Compensation Specialists v Compensation Claims Service [2003] EWCA Civ 1108, CA
In the above cases Douglas has appeared both with and without a leader.
Among the trials he has done without a leader are the following:
