Secondary proceedings meaning

Stage 1—preparing to bring a claim and pre-action matters Guidance on infringement, defences, ownership, injunctions, running disputes, and the Business and Property Courts Disclosure Scheme; cease and desist precedent; timetable checklist; key forms; IP insurance. Stage 2—letter of claim alleging copyright infringement Guidance on infringement, drafting letters of claim, unjustified threats and remedies, with precedents for standard and peer‑to‑peer infringement letters. Stage 3—commencing proceedings Notes on infringement, secondary infringement, permitted acts, remedies, criminal offences, the Business and Property Courts and the Disclosure Scheme; pleadings/initial disclosure precedents; Disclosure/IPEC flow tools; CPR claim/defence/settlement/default forms. Stage 4—case management Guidance on running disputes, costs management and the Disclosure Scheme; checklist; Chancery, Patents Court and IPEC Guides; Mitchell v NGN; core case‑management and disclosure forms. Stage 5—disclosure and evidence Notes on e‑disclosure, witness statements and the Disclosure Scheme; PD 57AC for Business and Property Courts trial statements (not...

Following a 205-page judgment that shed little light on the contentious question, lawyers have stepped up calls for the government to issue guidance and, if needed, update long-established copyright law so rightsholders and AI developers are not left uncertain. Gill Dennis, a partner at Pinsent Masons LLP, noted that the ruling makes it more urgent than ever to decide whether training AI on copyrighted works amounts to infringement, and that the onus is now firmly on the government to deliver clear, prompt policy direction Getty Images commenced proceedings in 2023, alleging that Stability AI trained its Stable Diffusion model on millions of copyright-protected images taken from the stock image company’s own website and from its subsidiary, iStock. It further claimed that its trade mark rights were breached when Stable Diffusion generated images displaying watermarks for both Getty Images and iStock...

Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV; Uniqure Biopharma BV and another company v CSL Behring Llc [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision carries practical consequences for practitioners regarding, particularly: (i) how secondary material bears on inventive step; and (ii) the significance of expert testimony and the way the judge views those experts within proceedings. Secondary evidence The heart of Pfizer’s case was its ‘primary evidence’: that EP 650 lacked an inventive step over prior art—Stafford, a PCT application describing non‑naturally occurring FIX polypeptide mutants with assorted substitutions at position 338—when assessed by the notional skilled team (a gene therapist and a structural biologist). On that footing, they would deem it obvious to employ a modified FIX gene bearing leucine at position 338; on Pfizer’s telling, this followed straightforwardly. The judge disagreed, placing weight on ‘secondary evidence’, namely what real‑world research teams were actually doing at material time. Accordingly, the inquiry centred on contemporaneous practice rather than hypothesis. It...

In this issue: Electronic communications Key developments and horizon scanning Enforcing security and property insolvency Trespass and adverse possession Neighbour and party wall disputes Disputes and remedies Additional Property Disputes updates LexTalk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Electronic communications DSIT consults on draft regulations to implement sections 61–64 of PSTIA 2022 DSIT has opened a technical consultation on proposed secondary legislation to bring sections 61–64 of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 (PSTIA 2022) into effect. The draft instruments would revise Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) in England and Wales, and also amend the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, SI 1996/725. The objective is to recast the financial basis of lease renewals by replacing current valuation approaches with provisions modelled on the Electronic Communications Code. The reforms would extend to tenancies...

There are statutory rules governing a company’s auditor liability and the extent to which it can be curtailed. Before 6 April 2008, a company was prohibited from excusing or indemnifying its auditors for any negligence, default, breach of duty, or breach of trust connected with the company that arose in carrying out the audit of the accounts. That prohibition has since changed, and such protection is now allowed, so long as it is either an indemnity covering the costs of successfully defending proceedings or a liability limitation agreement. Furthermore, additional requirements concerning an auditor’s liability and its caps may apply to a listed company, an AIM company, or a company whose securities are listed on the AQSE Main Market, AQSE Growth Market, or AQSE Trading (previously the NEX Exchange Main Board, NEX Exchange Growth Market, and NEX Exchange Secondary Market), though those matters fall outside the ambit of this Practice Note. Some or all of the statutory measures addressing auditors and liability limitation agreements may equally extend to other companies...

Purpose of the Credit Institutions (Reorganisation and Winding Up) Directive The Credit Institutions (Reorganisation and Winding Up) Directive 2001/24/EC (CIWUD) was introduced to guarantee that a credit institution, together with its branches in other Member States, is reorganised or wound up in line with the principles of unity and universality, meaning there is a single set of insolvency proceedings in which the credit institution is handled as one single entity. Accordingly, the CIWUD therefore ensured that the institution’s assets, wherever they are found, are captured within a single, unified winding‑up procedure, thereby removing the confusion and uncertainty associated with any secondary proceedings. The CIWUD sought to prevent the separation of assets of the credit institution so that creditors outside of the...

Different definitions of COMI The expression 'centre of main interests' (COMI) is common in cross-border restructuring and, across the regimes below, (i) is defined in slightly different ways and (ii) results in different consequences: Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (OJ L141 5.6.2015 p 19), the Recast Regulation on Insolvency (EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency) operating between Member States (see Practice Note: Recast Regulation on Insolvency as between Member States-main, secondary and territorial proceedings) (and as it used to apply to the UK pre-Brexit), where COMI determines which courts may commence 'main proceedings'. The Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (Assimilated Recast Regulation on Insolvency) (previously called the Retained Recast Regulation on Insolvency) as it applies to the UK post-Brexit, where COMI identifies which courts can commence 'COMI proceedings' (see further discussion of effects below). The UNCITRAL Model Law on cross-border insolvency (see Practice Note: How courts determine COMI under the UNCITRAL Model Law (and when an Establishment is enough)), where COMI is useful in cross-border recognition matters to...