Background technology meaning

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and no longer updated. It is supplied for background reference only. The Checklist aims to equip arbitration practitioners with a catalogue of strategic, procedural and practical considerations that could be pertinent to—and should be weighed before, during and/or after—arbitral proceedings in the context of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the responses of national governments and international arbitral organisations, including arbitral institutions. The Checklist is not comprehensive in scope and not every point will be applicable in each arbitration. It likewise omits any assessment of the substantive disputes that may lead to proceedings in the first instance (for example, claims over failed contractual performance said to result from the pandemic and its consequences). Although prepared with commercial arbitrations in view, many elements will equally apply to other arbitral forms, including investor–state. The Checklist also envisages arbitrations with oral hearings; matters conducted on a ‘documents only’ basis should be largely unaffected, except insofar as the pandemic has created personal difficulties for participants...

Checklist This Checklist summarises the key considerations when two parties place software with a trusted third party (an ‘escrow agent’). The software is provided to one party upon an agreed release event, for example where that party has met its obligations, or another party has not fulfilled theirs... See also Practice Note: Software escrow Escode Single Licensee Escrow Agreement Escode Multi Licensee Escrow Agreement Escode Multi Licensee Deposit Account Agreement Escode Escrow as a Service (Access) Agreement Escode Escrow as a Service (Replicate) Agreement Escode Escrow as a Service Scale Agreement (Multi Customer Deposit Account) The third column can be used to capture observations or comments while working through the Checklist... Checklist | Further information | Notes (if any)... Recitals and parties ☐ Background and purpose of escrow arrangements. Identify the parties and the objective of the escrow agreement, including the rationale for adopting an escrow solution... ☐ Details of...

How to use this Checklist This Checklist flags frequent issues encountered when negotiating and drafting the following agreements: Software support agreement—pro-customer Software support agreement—pro-supplier For background on matters addressed here, see Practice Note: Key issues in software licence agreements. For the main points likely to feature in talks on a software support agreement, see Practice Note: Negotiation guide—IT contracts. Also see Practice Note: Key issues in SaaS and hardware/software maintenance SLAs and Precedent: Service Level Agreement (hardware/software fault resolution support services). This Checklist can also support drafting brief, non-binding heads of terms; for that, see Precedent: Heads of terms—commercial contracts. Checklist schedule for proposed software support agreement Use the third column to note observations or remarks as you progress through the Checklist. Checklist Further information Notes (if any) Parties Confirm each party’s legal status. Check whether any third parties (such as group affiliates) are intended to benefit from the proposed agreement. Confirm whether any...

Fujifilm Corporation v Kodak Holding GmbH and others, UPC_CFI_355/2023 Case background Fujifilm Corporation has brought proceedings against a number of Kodak entities, alleging breaches of multiple European patents covering offset printing technology. Two suits were commenced in the UPC’s Mannheim Local Division, and a further action (ACT_578607/2023; UPC_CFI_355/2023) was lodged with the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning the purported infringement of EP3594009. In that latter matter, Kodak responded with a counterclaim seeking revocation. At the time, the European patent was effective in Germany and the UK, and all litigants were domiciled in Germany, a UPC contracting member state. Decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division Ruling on the dispute, the Düsseldorf Local Division held the European patent invalid under the European Patent Convention (EPC), after refusing Fujifilm’s proposed amendments. It acknowledged it lacked competence to set aside the UK part of the patent—so that portion remains in force—whereas the German part of the patent was revoked...

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc and others v Dexcom Inc and others [2024] EWHC 1664 (Pat) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling forms part of the parties’ wider, cross-border battle over CGM technology. The conclusions on infringement and validity are, for the most part, tethered to the facts of this dispute. Nonetheless, the court’s observations on the deployment of expert evidence will interest practitioners, and stand as a further reminder that experts instructed in patent litigation must operate in the correct technical domain. Here, the technological sophistication suggested that the hypothetical skilled team would need a broad span of knowledge and experience, which a lone expert might find difficult to encompass. Where more than one expert is retained, they should be permitted to review each other’s reports so that the combined competencies of the skilled team are mirrored in the evidence in the case at hand...

The Software Incubator Ltd v Computer Associates UK Ltd Case C‑410/19 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Justice has issued the most recent ruling in a protracted dispute first considered by the High Court in 2016, arising out of an agreement that was terminated in 2013. The case will now return to the Supreme Court which, pursuant to Articles 86 and 89 of the UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement, is obliged to give effect to that judgment. Although the Supreme Court’s final position is still awaited, the decision is expected to carry major consequences for software resellers who, acting as commercial agents, may rely on the protections and remedies provided by the Commercial Agents Regulations, SI 1993/3053, irrespective of the format or medium through which software is supplied to customers. It is likewise important for principals that deploy resellers as a route to market for software made available chiefly by electronic means. Such organisations should take practical steps to measure and quantify any potential exposure to...

Key evidence and disclosure decisions 2016—what do you need to know? ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is no longer maintained and is provided for background only. In addition, some links may not take you to the provisions as they were at the time this guidance was issued. In 2016 there were, among other matters, developments relating to: predictive coding—see below disclosure of confidential information—see below without prejudice communications—see below the court’s duty to scrutinise evidence—see below privilege—see below use of interim witness statements at trial—see below concurrent expert evidence—see below Predictive coding In Pyrrho Investments v MWB Property, the court endorsed, for the first time, the use of predictive coding technology during disclosure. It highlighted the advantages of the approach and set out considerations for deciding whether the software is appropriate in a particular case. Soon after, the Chancery Division in David Brown v BCA Trading again directed the use of predictive coding, this time despite...

This Practice Note offers guidance on the Media Act 2024 (MA 2024), enacted to modernise the regulation of public service broadcasters (PSBs) in light of smart TV technologies and the expansion of video-on-demand (VoD). It outlines the principal legislative measures and evaluates what they mean for businesses. It further highlights the consequences for the regulator, Ofcom, arising from the broader powers granted to it under the Act. Background to MA 2024 In April 2022, a White Paper titled Up next—the government’s vision for the broadcasting sector (the White Paper) was laid before Parliament by the then Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). On the same day, the government issued its response to the Digital Radio and Audio Review. Commissioned in 2020, the Digital Radio and Audio Review examined the regulatory framework for radio and audio and produced recommendations in light of altered listening patterns, with most radio consumption now occurring via digital platforms. The White Paper set out a series of legislative reforms intended...

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 Agreement is entered into on [ insert date ] (the Commencement Date) by and between: Parties [ insert supplier name ], a company incorporated in England and Wales, whose registered number is [ insert company number ] and whose registered office is at [ insert registered office ] (Supplier); and [ insert customer name ], a company incorporated in England and Wales, whose registered number is [ insert company number ] and whose registered office is at [ insert registered office ] (Customer). Each of the Supplier and the Customer is a party, and together the Supplier and the Customer are the parties. Background The Supplier is [ an experienced software developer and ] [ insert the Supplier’s background details and the background to the relevant transaction ]. The Customer is [ insert the Customer’s background details ]. Subject to this Agreement, the Supplier shall develop software for the Customer and will licence (or arrange...

This Agreement is dated [ insert date ] Parties [ insert licensor name ], [ of OR a [ company OR partnership OR limited liability partnership ] [ incorporated OR constituted ] in [ insert jurisdiction, eg England and Wales ], registered number [ insert company or LLP number ], with [ registered office OR principal place of business ] at [ insert address ] (Licensor); and [ insert licensee name ], [ of OR a [ company OR partnership OR limited liability partnership ] [ incorporated OR constituted ] in [ insert jurisdiction, eg England and Wales ], registered number [ insert company or LLP number ], with [ registered office OR principal place of business ] at [ insert address ] (Licensee) Each of the Licensor and the Licensee is a party; together, the Licensor and the Licensee are the parties. Background The Licensor is the proprietor of the Technology IP. The Licensee has agreed...

This Agreement is entered into on [ date ] Parties 1 [ insert name of supplier ] [ of OR a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert registered number ] with its registered office at ] [ insert address ] ( Supplier ); and 2 [ insert name of customer ] [ of OR a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert registered number ] with its registered office at ] [ insert address ] ( Customer ) (each of the Supplier and the Customer is a party, and together the Supplier and the Customer constitute the parties). Background (A) The Customer [ insert information about the business of the Customer ] seeks to [ insert objectives of the project ]. (B) The Supplier supplies [ insert business of the Supplier ] and holds experience in [ insert services being procured ]. (C) The parties have decided...