RD meaning

This Checklist highlights the key matters to consider when preparing new Research and Development (R&D) agreements, or revising existing R&D agreements, to determine whether they fall within the block exemption available under the Competition Act 1998 (Research and Development Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022 (UK R&D BEO), SI 2022/1271. It is not a full guide to the UK R&D BEO, but is intended for situations where a commercial lawyer wishes to be confident that an R&D agreement sits within the UK R&D BEO and aligns with the CMA Guidance on Horizontal Agreements (2023 Horizontal Guidance). Introduction to the UK R&D BEO Any agreement that influences trade or restricts competition in the UK may fall under the prohibition on anti-competitive agreements in Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 (CA 1998) (the Chapter I prohibition)...

Using this Checklist This Checklist concentrates on the IP elements of R&D agreements and pinpoints the principal provisions commonly found in such contracts. It serves as a list of points to address when drafting, reviewing or negotiating these agreements. It also touches on central competition law issues. Nevertheless, a case-by-case analysis is required to confirm that an agreement’s IP clauses align with competition rules, notably the bans on anti-competitive agreements in Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 (CA 1998). On 1 June 2023, the European Commission adopted the EU Research & Developments Block Exemption, Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1066 (EU R&D BER), together with the related Horizontal Guidelines. The EU R&D BER took effect on 1 July 2023 and will lapse on 30 June 2035. On 5 December 2022, the UK government placed before Parliament the Competition Act 1998 (Research and Development Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022 (UK R&D BEO), SI 2022/1271. The UK...

Manufacturing agreement and know-how licence This Checklist sets out the principal provisions commonly included in a manufacturing agreement and a know-how licence. Use it as a prompt when drafting, reviewing or negotiating these contracts. For examples of manufacturing agreements, see Precedents: Manufacturing agreement—pro-customer Manufacturing agreement—pro-manufacturer For additional guidance on licensing know-how, see Practice Note: Know-how—protection and licensing. Where appropriate, this Checklist can also act as the starting point for concise, non-binding heads of terms. For advice on this, see Precedent: Heads of terms—commercial contracts. Checklist schedule for proposed manufacturing agreement and know-how licence (A) Key commercial considerations Notes Parties Parties: verify each party’s legal status, and whether any third parties (for example, group affiliates) will benefit under the proposed agreement. Third-party guarantees: confirm whether any third party will guarantee a party’s performance or financial obligations. Commencement and duration Commencement: confirm the intended commencement / effective date....

It’s in the wording—two recent UK rulings show how collaboration agreements and employment arrangements with people engaged in R&D can unravel Bionome Technology Ltd v Clearwater [2024] EWHC 3155 (Ch) Hill v Touchlight Genetics Ltd and other companies [2025] EWHC 107 (Pat) Key takeaways The upshot from these disputes is that the Courts of England & Wales will focus on the natural, ordinary meaning of the chosen words—assessed in their full context—when reaching an interpretation. An assignment of IP rights may fail to take effect for a range of reasons: for example, non-compliance with required legal formalities, or a conclusion that—on the proper construction of the instrument—it was not sufficiently explicit that the IP was intended to pass, and therefore ineffective in law. Accordingly, assignment wording must be prepared and reviewed with real care and precision, with drafters keeping potential future disputes firmly in mind to sharpen the context and reduce room for argument. In that respect, it can be appropriate, and...

Meril Life Sciences PVT Ltd & others v Edwards Lifesciences Corporation UPC-CoA-551/2024 Background In late October 2023, Edwards commenced infringement proceedings against Meril, relying on its Unitary Patent (EP 3,769,722), before the Nordic‑Baltic RD. The patent had been granted in June 2023 and, in March 2024, Meril lodged an opposition, shortly before submitting a revocation counterclaim within the UPC action. Together with those revocation counterclaims, Meril also applied in the infringement case, asking the court to stay the proceedings pending a decision by the EPO’s Opposition Division on the validity of the EPO. Neither side sought expedition of the EPO proceedings. Nevertheless, following UPC notification to the EPO of the corresponding infringement case on 20 March 2024, the EPO fast‑tracked the matter, listing the hearing for 17 January 2025 and shortening the period for final written submissions from the customary two months to a single month. In a preliminary, non‑binding opinion dated 18 July 2024, the EPO considered claim 1 of the patent to be novel, inventive and...

ARCHIVED: This tracker is archived and no longer updated. For an overview of Court of Protection cases from 2025 onwards, see: Court of Protection—table of cases. P, Re (Property & Affairs Deputyship: Jurisdiction) [2024] EWCOP 77 (T2) Court of Protection determines it has jurisdiction to consider whether P’s mother should continue as property and affairs deputy The proceedings related to P, an adult who sustained a brain injury in an accident and had a substantial personal injury claim. His mother had been appointed by the Court of Protection as his property and affairs deputy, and the present decision addressed an application seeking to revoke that appointment. The litigation had been protracted. Earlier, the court permitted ‘closed material’ to be withheld from P’s parents to facilitate capacity assessments; for a summary of that ruling, see here. Despite that step, neither the Official Solicitor nor the court gained clarity about P’s condition or even his location. It was reported that P was now residing in Italy. HHJ Burrows concluded that...

Universities and other academic institutions Universities and other academic bodies carry out extensive research and consequently create significant volumes of protectable IP. Safeguarding and exploiting this IP is both costly and time‑consuming, and frequently the university is better placed to manage this than individual academics. Many larger institutions operate IP policies requiring academics to assign all IP rights arising from their research to the university. In return, incentives such as a share of the income generated by the IP are provided. After a university secures ownership of IP, it can be commercialised in several ways, including: donation for the wider benefit of the public licensing to established third parties or start‑ups selling or assigning the IP to third parties creating spin‑offs to exploit the IP A university ‘spin‑off’ or ‘spin‑out’ is a new company established to capitalise on research conducted within an academic institution. Some of the largest and most recognisable corporations, such as the biotechnology company Amgen, originated as...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained Keeping abreast of case law that shapes a practitioner’s specialism, or influences civil litigation procedure generally, is a persistent challenge for those working in dispute resolution. This Practice Note distils the leading appeal authorities—decisions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, and, where relevant, selected judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)—that we have reported, giving users straightforward access to those rulings. Use the table of contents in the left margin to browse, or locate items quickly with [CTRL]+[F]. It also sets out a selection of forthcoming appeals, where known, to aid horizon scanning. The material is not intended to be a comprehensive catalogue of every appeal and/or significant decision for dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeal cases—2019 Terminating contracts—frustration Canary Wharf (BP4) T1 Ltd v European Medicines Agency [2019] EWHC 921 (Ch)—Court of Appeal: permission to appeal granted in the lower court...

This Agreement is entered into on [ date ], between the following: Parties [ insert name ], being of [ insert address ] OR a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert registered number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] ([ Party A ]); [ insert name ], being of [ insert address ] OR a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert registered number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] ([ Party B ]); (together, the Parties, and each, individually, a Party). Background [ Party A ] is engaged in the business of [ insert description of Party A’s business ]. [ Party B ] operates in the business of [ insert description of Party A’s business ]. The Parties have agreed to collaborate in a programme of research and development work in relation to [ insert...

This Agreement is entered into on [ insert date ] (the Commencement Date) between the following organisations (each a ‘party’ and collectively the ‘parties’), as identified below: Parties [ insert researcher name ], a company incorporated and registered in [ England and Wales ] with company number [ insert company number ], whose registered office is at [ insert registered office ] (the Researcher) [ insert customer name ], a company incorporated and registered in [ England and Wales ] with company number [ insert company number ], whose registered office is at [ insert registered office ] (the Customer) Background The Researcher has the expertise and capacity to undertake research within the field of [ insert details ]. The Customer wishes to appoint the Researcher to perform the Research (as defined below), and the Researcher agrees to proceed on the terms of this Agreement as set out herein. [ Insert details ]...

These training resources comprise PowerPoint templates intended to underpin single or multiple seminars addressing matters that arise when safeguarding know‑how. Trainers are expected to treat the slides as a useful foundation for their talks, adapting and refining them as needed so that each presentation aligns with, and is tailored to, their own specific context and their particular circumstances...