Background intellectual property meaning

How to use this Checklist This Checklist aims to flag matters that frequently arise during negotiation and drafting of the following agreement types: Website development agreement — long form Website development agreement — short form For more detail on the points raised by this Checklist, see the following Practice Notes: Website design and development Domain names—background, registration and dispute resolution Intellectual property rights considerations for websites For software-specific issues, see Practice Note: Key issues in software licence agreements. Where appropriate, this Checklist may act as the basis for a simple, non-binding heads of terms. For guidance on doing so, see Precedent: Heads of terms—commercial contracts. The third column can be used to note observations or comments while working through the Checklist. Checklist for proposed website development agreement Checklist | Further information | Notes (if any) (A) Key commercial considerations Verify each party’s legal status and whether...

This Checklist highlights the principal points to weigh up when entering into, drafting, or reviewing contractual joint venture arrangements. It addresses the legal, regulatory and practical aspects surrounding such arrangements. For background, see Practice Notes: Contractual joint ventures; Drafting a contractual joint venture agreement; and Drafting for particular types of contractual joint venture. Preliminary issues for consideration What is the current position of the parties’ discussions? See Practice Note: Pre-contractual representations and statements. Is a confidentiality undertaking needed from one, some or all parties or their affiliates? See Practice Note: Practical steps to protect or obtain access to confidential information and Precedents: Confidentiality agreement—contractual joint venture; Confidentiality agreement—one-way—pro-discloser; Confidentiality agreement—one-way—pro-recipient; and Confidentiality agreement—mutual. Do the parties intend to reserve a period of exclusive negotiation? See Practice Note: Exclusivity in contract negotiations. Identify any potential roadblocks to the deal (for example, competition issues, regulatory consents or licences) and how to address them. See Practice Notes: Competition law and joint ventures; Analysing horizontal agreements under...

Iconix Luxembourg Holdings Sarl v Dream Pairs Europe Inc and another company [2024] EWCA Civ 29 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment matters to practitioners in two respects. First, it offers clear direction on how to evaluate the likelihood of confusion: look at how the trade marks are encountered in the real world. The Court of Appeal cautioned against the common trap of assessing marks only on paper without considering their presentation to the public post-sale confusion constitutes trade mark infringement. Arnold LJ set this out in Datacard v Eagle and, as he explained in Montres Breguet, it is now an established element of UK trade mark law for logos, where a logo functions as a single sign, assessment must address the sign in its entirety, without carving out parts or altering its overall impression These points collectively reinforce a practical, context-driven approach to confusion analysis, ensuring that consumer perception in real trading conditions, including after purchase,...

Modernatx, Inc v Pfizer Ltd and other companies; Pfizer Inc and another company v Modernatx, Inc [2024] EWHC 1695 (Pat) Note that the issues concerning Moderna’s undertaking not to enforce its patents were separated into their own proceedings at a case management conference. That question was determined in a distinct High Court judgment by Judge Jonathan Richards, also delivered on 2 July 2024, which found that Pfizer and BioNTech cannot rely on Moderna’s pandemic-era non-enforcement pledge to avoid the consequences of any infringement. For additional detail on both matters and the background, see Practice Note: Life sciences cases tracker—UK. See also Law360 News Analysis: Pfizer, BioNTech infringed Moderna’s mRNA vaccine patent. The connected case citation is Pfizer Inc v Modernatx, Inc; Modernatx, Inc v Pfizer Ltd [2024] EWHC 1648 (Pat). What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling is notable as it represents the first patent dispute relating to coronavirus vaccines to reach the courts. The litigation was complex, both in terms of case management...

Dish Technologies Llc (a company incorporated under the laws of the state of Colorado, USA) and another company v Aylo Premium Ltd (a company incorporated under the laws of Cyprus) and other companies; Aylo Premium Ltd (a company incorporated under the laws of Cyprus) and another company v Dish Technologies Llc (a company incorporated under the laws of the state of Colorado, USA) [2024] EWHC 1310 (Pat) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling clarifies the stance of the UK Patents Court when faced with a request for an accelerated trial timetable in patent matters before it. Under the Practice Statement, the Court endeavours, where feasible, to have patent actions listed for trial within 12 months of issue counted from the date the claim is issued. Listings begin from the current Trial Window publicised by the Chancery Division Listing Office; however, the Court can fix a trial up to one month before that slot without any formal expedition application, provided doing so enables the matter...

The Red Bus case, Temple Island Collections v New English Teas, was determined in what was then the Patents County Court (PCC) in January 2012, and it engages with the scope and reach of photographic copyright. The judgment has been the focus of considerable discussion, alongside a degree of criticism, in particular, because it appears to call into doubt a cardinal proposition of copyright law: that there is no copyright in an idea. Temple Island therefore squarely addresses the ambit of copyright protection. Although the PCC (now known as the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court) was an 'inferior' forum whose decisions carried no binding force on higher courts, copyright disputes that proceed all the way to a full trial are comparatively uncommon, and for that reason this case has been notably influential. Factual background Temple Island Collections (TIC) specialises in the design, manufacture and supply of souvenir gift items bearing a British theme. In 2010, TIC commenced copyright infringement proceedings in the PCC against New English Teas (NET). NET...

Intellectual property rights (IPR) can frequently become flashpoints and areas of dispute in outsourcing contract discussions and negotiations. Questions typically centre on the ownership and the licensing of rights, and also on the warranties and indemnities that each party seeks from the other concerning their authority to supply IPR (or provide access to it). This Practice Note addresses the following: Is intellectual property core to the deal? Categories of IPR in outsourcing arrangements Background IPR Foreground IPR Open source software New technologies including artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic process automation (RPA) Warranties and indemnities Handling of IPR on exit For illustrative clauses on IPR in outsourcing, refer to clause 29 in Precedent: Outsourcing agreement—long form. For a template IPR indemnity clause, see Precedents: Third party intellectual property rights indemnity clause—pro-supplier and Third party intellectual property rights indemnity clause—pro-customer. Is intellectual property core to the deal? In some outsourcing projects, the creation and ownership of...

This Practice Note explores Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the EU Digital Single Market (EU DSM Copyright Directive). It provides a concise high level outline of the background to, and the individual detailed articles of, the EU DSM Copyright Directive, and highlights debate over the wording of particular provisions, such as Article 15 on rights in press publications and Article 17 on use of protected content by online content sharing service providers (OCSSPs). The Practice Note also considers the status of the EU DSM Copyright Directive in the UK and points of divergence between the UK and the EU on key provisions. The EU DSM Copyright Directive amended Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases (EU Database Directive) and Directive 2001/29/EC (EU InfoSoc Directive). For details on developments in copyright and databases in the UK, see Practice Note: Copyright and databases tracker—UK, and for developments in the EU, see Practice Note: Copyright and...

This Agreement is entered into on [ insert date ] Parties [ insert name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] with number [ insert company number ] and having its registered office at [ insert address ] (Licensor); and [ insert name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] with number [ insert company number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (Licensee). Each of the Licensor and the Licensee is a party, and together the Licensor and the Licensee are the parties. BACKGROUND (A) The Licensor [ is the [ registered ] proprietor of OR is the applicant to register OR has the right to licence and/or sub-licence ] certain intellectual property rights. (B) The Licensee is [ insert background to licence/relevant transaction ]. (C) The Licensor has agreed to grant a licence of those intellectual property rights to the Licensee, and the Licensee has...

This Agreement is entered into on [ date ] Parties [ Insert name of party ] [ of OR a company incorporated in England and Wales under number [ insert registered number ] with its registered office at ] [ insert address ] (Party 1); and [ Insert name of party ] [ of OR a company incorporated in England and Wales under number [ insert registered number ] with its registered office at ] [ insert address ] (Party 2), each of Party 1 and Party 2 being a party and, together, the parties. BACKGROUND Party 1 supplies [ insert description of goods and/or services ]. Party 2 supplies [ insert description of goods and/or services ]. The parties intend to submit a Bid as a joint tender to the Customer in answer to the Invitation to Tender. The parties seek to state their obligations and manage their rights concerning the Bid and, if the...

This Agreement is entered into on [ date ]. Parties [ Insert name of licensor ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert registered number ] whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (Licensor); and [ Insert name of licensee ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert registered number ] whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (Licensee), Each of the Licensor and the Licensee is a party, and together the Licensor and the Licensee constitute the parties. Background The Licensee is [ insert details of the Licensee’s background/background to licence or relevant transaction. ] The Licensor has agreed to provide the Licensor Content to the Licensee and to grant the Licensee a licence to use the Licensor Content in accordance with the terms of this Agreement...

In this Q&A we focus on the amendments introduced by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 (subsequently consolidated in Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, the EU Trade Mark Regulation (EUTM Regulation)), along with the key points to consider when seeking protection for an unconventional mark. EU Trade Mark Regulation—What is new? See News Analysis: New EU trade mark reforms, which provides an analysis of the background to the new EU trade mark reforms. As outlined there, five new categories of trade mark can be applied for in the EU: Position Pattern Motion Multimedia Hologram These are in addition to a Certification Mark, which has been available in the UK for some time. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has issued guidance relating to the new EU trade mark reforms...