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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc (a corporation registered under the laws of the State of Delaware, United States) v Sinocare Inc (a corporation registered under the laws of the People’s Republic of China) and other companies [2025] EWHC 206 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? There are two principal practical consequences flowing from this decision. First, obtaining and preserving a valid registration for three-dimensional trade marks continues to be onerous, because the form of a product seldom serves, for the average consumer of the relevant goods, as a sign of commercial origin. Secondly, the evidence here brought into focus a crucial issue when attempting to show use of a mark in trade—namely, whether the sign has appeared by itself, or alongside other, usually more conspicuous, marks that indicate the provenance of the goods......
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...
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...
The window for submissions to the Labour government’s consultation closed on 25 February 2025, and practitioners warn the reforms face an all-or-nothing outcome. Paul Joseph, a partner at Linklaters LLP, said he suspects the choice is either to retain the current position or to adopt the EU model; his take on the copyright consultation is that there appears to be sufficient momentum to follow the EU approach, though only time will reveal the result. Opening in December 2024, the consultation proposed an exception to data-mining rules for businesses training AI models for commercial use (see: LNB News 19/12/2024 6). It also moots giving creatives an opt-out from such training in an effort to balance their rights. In essence, the plan would broaden text and data-mining exceptions to align with the EU, which is working to implement a similar opt-out for copyright works after...
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...
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents Designs Plant variety rights Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& A Useful information Trade marks/passing off Use it or lose it—comparable trade marks From 1 January 2026, use within the EU will no longer count for UK comparable trade marks. As a result, businesses that benefited from the automatic creation of a UK comparable mark derived from their EU trade mark must now show use in the UK to avoid potential revocation. Written by Jessica Gregson, associate, at Stevens & Bolton. See News Analysis: Use it or lose it—comparable trade marks. Patents Court has no jurisdiction to determine worldwide FRAND rate without necessary parties being present ( Tesla, Inc v IDAC Holdings, Inc) An implementer issued proceedings seeking declarations that three UK patents were invalid and non-essential, together with revocation......
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......
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...
What is a comparable mark? The UK Intellectual Property Office automatically created equivalent UK trade marks for each and every registered EU trade mark back in January 2021, which are called ‘comparable marks’. These comparable rights stand alone as separate registrations and are governed by the usual UK laws. Current position In the UK, a trade mark registration can be revoked if it is not used for an uninterrupted period of five years, similar to the position in the EU. However, use of the mark within the EU before 1 January 2021 may count as use of the comparable UK mark. This has enabled comparable marks to be preserved, even where there has been no actual use in the UK......
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents Copyright & associated rights IP and technology Confidential information Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off Did the EU General Court overstep its jurisdiction when reviewing an EUIPO Board of Appeal decision? ( EUIPO v Neoperl AG) In EUIPO v Neoperl AG ( Case C-93/23 P), a trade mark dispute about whether a tactile mark applied for at the EU Intellectual Property Office ( EUIPO) by Neoperl AG could be registered came before the EU General Court on appeal from a Board of Appeal ruling. When reassessing that decision, the General Court held that Article 7(1) of Regulation ( EC) No 207/2009 governed the evaluation. It concluded that, read together with Article 4, an initial...
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...
The publishers, including Guardian News & Media Ltd, the Atlantic Monthly Group LLC and the Mc Clatchy Co LLC, have filed a complaint accusing the Canadian AI firm of using copyright-protected works to train its large language models ( LLMs). It is the latest action by media companies and publishers against LLM developers that typically rely on vast bodies of data. The claimants contend Cohere went beyond training on restricted material: its systems sometimes reproduce protected content word for word, or generate incorrect answers that are wrongly attributed to the publishers. The complaint asserts the company has not only taken their works but also blatantly invents fake pieces and links them to the publishers, misleading the public and damaging their brands... A Cohere spokesperson said the company strongly stands by its practices for responsibly training its enterprise AI, adding that it has long...
Macdonald Hotels Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc [2025] EWHC 32 ( Comm) Relevant facts The High Court examined allegations brought against Bank of Scotland Plc ( BOS) by Macdonald Hotels Limited ( MHL) arising from the compelled sale of three properties: the Randolph Hotel, the Old England Hotel and the Marine Hotel (the Hotels). MHL contended that disposals occurred when valuations were unusually depressed, contravening implied terms of a facility agreement and, in relation to the Randolph, express provisions in a shareholders agreement. MHL further maintained that BOS ought to have allowed repayment by alternative means (including third‑party refinancing) and/or over an extended timescale. Resolving the dispute required review of years of dialogue, intricate documentation, and numerous detailed amendments. Careful consideration was required to identify and fully determine the issues arising in the case. This note concentrates on the funding...
Getty Images ( Us), Inc and other companies v Stability Al Ltd [2025] EWHC 38 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision highlights three practical points when pursuing claims in a representative capacity. Parties must understand the criteria for representative actions (succinctly set out at paragraph [57] of the judgment). In particular: define the class under CPR 19.8 precisely so every member can be identified ensure the class definition is not contingent on the litigation outcome; avoid definitions tied to disputed issues all class members must share the same interest; beware framing issues at too general a level, which unravels on closer analysis Sensible case management is equally vital, especially in complex disputes. The court repeatedly indicated—adversely to the representative route—that permitting such a claim without clear, worked‑through proposals for how the claim(s) would be dealt with would not sit...
In this issue: IP and technology Copyright & associated rights Trade marks/passing off General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information IP and technology Commission opens call for evidence on EU Geo-blocking Regulation’s evaluation The European Commission is initiating a review of Regulation ( EU) 2018/302 (the Geo-blocking Regulation), in place since December 2018. The exercise will examine whether the Regulation has met its goals of improving access to goods and services throughout the EU by tackling unjustified geo-blocking and discrimination linked to nationality, residence, or place of establishment. To support the evaluation process, a call for evidence has been launched seeking contributions from stakeholders. The period for feedback runs from 11 February 2025 to 11 March 2025. See: LNB News 11/02/2025...
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......
In this issue: IP and technology Patents General IP Lex Talk®IP: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information IP and technology EU AI Act starts to apply and Commission plans guidance The initial provisions of the EU AI Act took effect on 2 February. They cover the definition of an artificial intelligence ( AI) system, AI literacy obligations, and a list of prohibited AI uses judged to present unacceptable risks in the EU. The European Commission intends to issue guidance on the AI system definition, publish a repository of AI literacy practices, and provide direction on banned AI practices to aid compliance. The Commission has also introduced measures to spur AI innovation, including an AI innovation package for start-ups and SMEs, and...
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off The importance of a clear and precise trade mark description—invalidity actions against ‘three stripes’ trade marks ( Thom Browne v Adidas) In Thom Browne Inc v Adidas Ag [2024] EWHC 2990 ( Ch), Thom Browne sought to invalidate 16 UK trade mark registrations owned by Adidas, each comprising the ‘three stripes’ motif. Adidas responded with a counterclaim alleging that Thom Browne’s four‑stripe design infringed those registrations and also advanced passing off. The invalidity case asserted the Adidas entries were unclear, lacking precision and inconsistent, such that they did not amount to ‘signs’ under section 1(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994; they were further said to be...
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents Designs Copyright & associated rights General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off Alice through the looking glass (camera lens)— Defeating UK trade mark revocation proceedings with evidence of genuine use ( Alice v Photogram). Alice Ltd v Photogram Ltd [2024] EWHC 3256 ( IPEC) draws together the existing UK and Court of Justice case law on proving genuine use of a trade mark and on contesting applications for full or partial revocation. In contrast, it also underlines the jeopardy for an alleged infringer that must place all reliance on a revocation counterclaim when infringement is asserted. Authored by Emma Kennaugh- Gallacher, senior professional support lawyer at Mewburn Ellis. Read News Analysis: Alice through the...
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
