Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
Societa Italiana Lastre Sp A: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation ( France) lodged on 22 August 2023— Societa Italiana Lastre Sp A v Agora , Case C-537/23 In a nutshell—reinforced legal certainty but questions remain The court held that asymmetric jurisdiction clauses are to be assessed by reference to the autonomous framework in Article 25 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012 (the Brussels I (recast) Regulation), rather than under Member States’ national laws, and confirmed their effectiveness where the clause can be interpreted as designating courts within EU or Lugano States. This development dispels several prior uncertainties, in particular those arising from the shifting case law of the French Supreme Court. The finer points of the ruling and any practical consequences—especially the requirement that the clause be read as designating courts of EU or Lugano States—call for closer analysis;...
Fujifilm Corporation v Kodak Holding Gmb H 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...
Set out as a Q& A, the paper aims to guide medical device makers and healthcare professionals on how the EU AI Act’s obligations align with those in Regulation ( EU) 2017/745 (the Medical Devices Regulation) and Regulation ( EU) 2017/746 (the In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation) (together, the Medical Device Regulations ( MDRs)). An initial draft, seen by MLex, will be discussed at a meeting of a specialist subgroup of the European AI Board—an EU forum of national authorities—on 3 March 2025, with a final text potentially put to the board for approval in June 2025. Under the EU AI Act, where an AI system forms a product or a safety component of a product that requires third-party conformity assessment under sectoral law, it is classified as ‘high-risk’ and must observe a notably strict due diligence framework. This guidance is a first move to...
The EBA has released its preliminary view in case G 1/24. The matter addresses how far the description and figures should be consulted when interpreting the claims for the purposes of assessing patentability. Although concise and not binding on the EBA itself, the preliminary view offers an early indication of the EBA’s thinking. Set out below are the three questions put to the EBA by the Board of Appeal in T 0439/22, together with remarks on the EBA’s preliminary view in respect of each question. Question 1— Is Article 69(1), second sentence EPC and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC to be applied on the interpretation of patent claims when assessing the patentability of an invention under Articles 52 to 57 EPC? Question 1 asks whether the legal provisions used for interpreting claims when defining the scope of...
He said the rate would be 25%, broadly, covering cars and a host of other items. Trump charged that the EU was ‘taking advantage’ of the US and refusing American cars, flagging a US$300bn goods deficit with the EU, he said. He asserted the EU ‘was created to shaft the United States’. ‘ They’ve done a fine job of it, but now I’m’......
The General Court ruled The General Court held that the EU Intellectual Property Office ( EUIPO) had wrongly favoured the Russian tea producer, May COO, by overemphasising its view that Russian-speaking Latvians would recognise May’s ‘Майский Чай’ as a translation of Schweppes International Ltd’s ‘ May Tea’ mark. As ‘tea’ and ‘чай’ are merely descriptions of the parties’ products, the court stated that, in these circumstances, any conceptual overlap between the signs should carry only limited weight when assessing the likelihood of confusion for that segment of the public. This contrasts with the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal, which in 2023 concluded that the conceptual identity of the marks prevailed over their visual and phonetic differences......
In this issue Commercial Data protection and cybersecurity Financial services Energy Environment Insurance and reinsurance Life sciences Regulatory TMT International trade Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers Commercial The impact of the revised EU Product Liability Directive on the automated vehicles sector Directive ( EU) 2024/2853 (the Revised EU Product Liability Directive) streamlines how consumers bring product liability claims, widens its remit to cover software and AI‑integrated products, lightens the evidential burden, and introduces new disclosure obligations designed to balance consumer protection with the opportunities and challenges of rapidly evolving technologies, including automated vehicles ( AVs). In this piece, we outline what AV manufacturers placing products on the EU market need to grasp about the updated product liability framework and how they can reduce mounting liability risks. Written by Katie...
Introduction Directive ( EU) 2024/2853, the Revised EU Product Liability Directive, was adopted on 23 October 2024 and must be implemented by EU Member States by 9 December 2026. The Revised EU Product Liability Directive reshapes the liability risk landscape for manufacturers of automated vehicles ( AVs). It constitutes a substantial overhaul of Directive 85/374/ EEC, the EU Product Liability Directive, aiming to strengthen consumer protections and respond to the challenges created by ever more complex and technologically advanced products, including AVs. In this article we outline what AV manufacturers selling products in the EU need to understand about the new product liability regime and how they can mitigate rising product liability risks. We also note that the UK product liability system is currently governed by the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which implemented the existing Product Liability Directive into UK law......
What is the Deepseek AI model? Deep Seek AI is a cutting-edge artificial intelligence system built by Deep Seek, a company based in China. The organisation’s mission centres on stretching the limits of AI to deliver tools that empower enterprises and elevate human capability, while keeping advanced AI accessible, ethical and meaningful. Established in 2023, Deep Seek rose swiftly through the AI ranks by releasing free, open-source language models. Most recently it unveiled two high-end models: V3, aimed at broad use cases such as chat-style applications, and R1, tailored for reasoning-heavy work, including programming and maths challenges. R1 has drawn notable media interest by offering cost-conscious AI performance when set against leading US counterparts. Why is it having a big impact on technology markets around the world? Deep Seek AI is reshaping global tech markets largely through its cost efficiency. Reports suggest the company trained its system for...
The EU AI Act adopts a layered regime for AI systems, imposing transparency duties on every model and reserving stricter risk‑management obligations for the most potent ‘systemic’ ones. These obligations are being hammered out through a code of practice intended as a key compliance tool for model providers. Yet that code could prove marginal if models are not correctly classified for systemic risk Under the Act, a model is chiefly deemed systemic when its training consumed more than 10^25 floating‑point operations. According to research institute Epoch AI, several flagship systems have already crossed this line, including: Open AI’s o1 Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 Sonnet Mistral AI’s Large 2 These are commonly viewed as ‘frontier’ models, pushing the limits of this disruptive technology. Nonetheless, recent developments increasingly call into question whether the volume of compute used in the pre‑training stage is the most...
Article 45 of the DSA Article 45 of the DSA provides that, when significant systemic risks arise under Article 34(1) (which sets out the duty on very large online platforms ( VLOPs) and very large online search engines ( VLOSEs) to identify, analyse, and assess systemic risks), and affect multiple VLOPs or VLOSEs, the Commission may ask those VLOPs and VLOSEs to help draft codes of conduct, with commitments to adopt risk mitigation measures and to report on those measures and their results. The Code of Conduct+ was adopted in this context. VLOPs’ and VLOSEs’ adherence to the Code of Conduct+ can count as a mitigation measure under Article 35 of the DSA; however, participation in and implementation of the Code of Conduct+ does not, by itself, amount to compliance with the DSA ( Recital 104)......
In this issue: EU fundamentals Competition and state aid Data protection and cybersecurity Financial services Energy Environment IP Life sciences Regulatory TMT International trade Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers New Q& As EU fundamentals European e- Justice Strategy 2024–2028 On 16 January 2025, the European e- Justice Strategy 2024–2028 ( Strategy) was printed in the Official Journal of the EU ( OJEU). It sets out a framework to advance the digitalisation of justice across the EU and continues the Union’s drive to modernise judicial systems. The initiative furthers the EU’s sustained push to update court systems EU-wide and digitally. Marco Pasqua, junior editor of the European Association of Private International Law blog, examines the Strategy. See News Analysis: European e- Justice Strategy...
The investigation stems directly from a grievance filed by Glass Fibre Europe, the European body representing glass fibre manufacturers, regarding underpriced imports from the three nations. In January 2025, EU makers of filament glass-fibre reinforcements ( GFR), covering rovings, chopped strands and glass-fibre mats, formally took their concerns to the Commission’s trade department about a surge in unfairly cheap shipments notably from Bahrain, Egypt and Thailand that indeed harm the EU’s industry. Dumping arises when a product is offered below the......
Context The Strategy rests on a range of EU legislative measures and instruments. Chief among them is Regulation ( EU) 2022/850 on the e‑ CODEX system, establishing a computerised framework for secure cross‑border exchange of judicial data. Through protected services, this platform lets judicial authorities communicate, simplifying cooperation between them. In addition, Regulation ( EU) 2020/1784 on service of documents and Regulation ( EU) 2020/1783 on taking of evidence mandate interoperable IT systems based on e‑ CODEX for digital communications in civil and commercial matters from May 2025 onwards. The ‘ Digitalisation Package’— Regulation ( EU) 2023/2844 and Directive ( EU) 2023/2843 on digitalising cross‑border judicial cooperation and access to justice—sits at the heart of the EU’s e‑ Justice policy agenda. These instruments allow natural and legal persons, and their representatives, to communicate electronically via a European electronic access point. They further permit...
EUIPO v Neoperl AG Case C‑93/23 P What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Justice confirmed boundaries on the General Court’s ability to amend rulings of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, a principle that may extend to other EU bodies’ determinations. Primary appraisal of facts and proof lies with the EUIPO Board of Appeal, not the General Court. The General Court cannot deploy its power to modify an outcome when that outcome was not issued by the EUIPO, as that would entail a first‑instance assessment of facts or evidence. It further clarifies that Article 7 of Regulation ( EC) 207/2009 contains self‑standing grounds; they need not be applied sequentially, or even all addressed, to refuse registration of an applied‑for trade mark. In effect, its review cannot replace the Board’s initial factual appraisal or transform the proceedings into a...
Key elements of the AI system definition Given the wide variety of AI systems, the guidance cannot offer a complete list. Each system must be evaluated on its own particular characteristics. The EU AI Act adopts a lifecycle-oriented approach and characterises an AI system as: a machine-based system designed to operate with differing degrees of autonomy that may show adaptability after deployment and, for explicit or implicit aims infers from the inputs it receives how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can affect physical or virtual environments This seven-part definition spans two main stages: pre-deployment (building phase) and post-deployment (use phase). The seven elements need not be present throughout both stages; some may appear only at one point. The following offers a brief summary of each of the seven points listed...
Commission v Intel Corporation Case C-240/22 P What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling chiefly clarifies the function of the AEC test and identifies where the evidential burden under Article 102 TFEU sits, while also bearing on the EU’s position in its latest draft Guidelines. It further delineates the scope of review the General Court must undertake. The draft Guidelines sought to increase legal certainty in enforcing exclusionary abuses under Article 102 TFEU, regarded as crucial to competition operating effectively. They introduce a soft presumption that rebate schemes can yield exclusionary outcomes, thereby placing the onus on a dominant undertaking to disprove it. More broadly, the Guidelines point to a move away from the AEC test towards an appraisal of the potential effects of the exclusionary practice on all market players. Nonetheless, the General Court’s 2022 judgment, upheld by the Court of...
The EU AI Liability Directive The EU AI Liability Directive surfaced on the Commission executive’s list of files to be scrapped at the eleventh hour, following pressure from EU digital chief, Henna Virkkunen, and as part of a wider push to reduce and simplify the regulatory framework. At a press briefing on the Commission’s 2025 work programme (which outlines upcoming initiatives and those to be abandoned), Šefčovič, responsible for deepening the Commission’s relations with lawmakers and Member States, said Commissioners had been examining how files marked for withdrawal were advancing through the co‑legislative process. ‘ When we observe that these particular proposals are stuck, at times for many years, we harbour serious doubts that they will progress this year,’ he said. The EU AI Liability Directive, a plan to harmonise certain administrative aspects of AI‑related damage claim proceedings, has indeed advanced little since it was...
In this issue Key developments Banking and finance Commercial Data protection and cybersecurity Financial services Environment Insurance and reinsurance IP Life sciences TMT International trade Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers Key developments Commission approves 2025 Work Programme The Commission has signed off its 2025 Work Programme, setting out achievements since 2019 and mapping priority actions for 2025, including 18 further legislative proposals, alongside how it will implement the 2024–2029 political guidelines. The 2025 Work Programme builds on the recently launched Competitiveness Compass, a strategic framework designed to steer the Commission’s work over the next five years. See: LNB News 12/02/2025 67. Commission releases February 2025 infringement package The Commission has issued the February 2025 infringement package, outlining measures against EU Member States that have failed to meet obligations under EU law. This month’s package features letters of formal notice, reasoned opinions, and Court of Justice referrals sent to a number of countries regarding key...
The European Commission stated on 11 February 2025 that it will review whether to bring forward another SEP proposal or whether ‘another type of approach should be chosen’, signalling a sudden halt to the proposal. In particular, the proposal mooted the creation of a centralised registry for SEPs, overseen by the European Union Intellectual Property Office ( EUIPO), and empowering the office to decide whether these patents were genuinely essential to the claimed technology standard. The proposal sought to introduce far-reaching changes to the existing practices for licensing standard-essential patents across Europe......
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
