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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Thom Browne Inc and another company v Adidas Ag and other companies [2024] EWHC 2990 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Striking the right balance when defining a non‑standard trade mark for registration is difficult. The description has to make the nature of the sign and the extent of the protection conferred by registration plain and unequivocal, while still enabling action against third parties who deploy something comparable. That tension sits between articulating, with certainty, what the mark comprises and how wide its protection runs, and retaining the means to enforce it against similar uses. In this dispute, the language adopted for Adidas’s clothing and bag marks could be read as covering several variants of the sign, embracing multiple forms of the trade mark, and accordingly those entries were found invalid. By contrast, the footwear descriptions were...
Brands now have the tools to allow them to challenge supermarket packaging that strays too close to their own branding, according to analysis in the sector. However, in-house counsel must carefully check their businesses possess adequate and relevant trade mark cover from the outset before mounting any such case through the courts. Securing these rights upfront is therefore critical to any enforcement strategy in practice. Addleshaw Goddard LLP’s co-head of IP, Geoff Steward, said that with appropriate packaging trade mark registrations in place, UK brand-owners can effectively call time on supermarket own-brands free-riding on their brand IP. Thatchers’ Cider Co Ltd issued a trade mark infringement claim against Aldi in 2022. It argued the German budget supermarket had adopted packaging for its Taurus cloudy lemon cider that infringed a trade mark Thatchers held for its own...
Alice Ltd v Photogram Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 3256 ( IPEC) What are the practical implications of this case? While this decision does not set out any fresh substantive principles on section 46 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 ( TMA 1994) or revocation for want of genuine use, it neatly brings together the established authorities. HHJ Clark’s judgment distils the guidance of the Court of Appeal and the Court of Justice (in a number of cases) on how evidence should be evaluated in revocation proceedings. It begins by restating the basics—that genuine use denotes actual use of the trade mark by the proprietor or an authorised third party ( Ansul). The ruling then gathers the precedents on genuine use into a clear, practical checklist of the key points for compiling evidence of genuine use when responding to an...
Halozyme Inc v Comptroller- General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2024] EWHC 3202 ( Pat) What are the practical implications of this case? In practical terms, little has shifted. The decision will not deter the UK IPO from continuing its Sm PC/ EPAR-led approach when identifying what constitutes an active ingredient. The court did not determine whether there are situations where other materials should be taken into account; it simply concluded that, on these facts, the Hearing Officer was entitled to ignore them because they were of no assistance. It remains worth watching how future cases develop on this point, particularly in contrasting contexts yet to be tested, such as pro-drugs, where the UK IPO’s practice is to grant SPCs on the basis that pro-drugs are different chemical entities from the parent drugs even if the pro-moiety would not meet the Forsgren (...
In this issue: Copyright & associated rights General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& As Useful information Copyright & associated rights Creatives face concern as the High Court declines permission for a representative claim in a large-scale copyright action ( Getty v Stability AI). It is one aspect of ongoing related proceedings here. The matter sits within wider proceedings addressing pivotal issues around copyright infringement arising from the use and training of generative artificial intelligence ( AI). This ruling considers a defence application seeking directions that the sixth claimant cannot serve as a representative under CPR 19.8. The sixth claimant is a photographer who has granted licences over his works to the Getty Images corporate group, comprising the first to fifth claimants. Relying on CPR 19.8, the claimants aimed to bring a representative action to overcome the difficulty that numerous...
In this issue: General IP Copyright & associated rights Patents Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information General IP Intellectual Property cases to watch in 2025 Law360, London: While 2025 may see fewer UK IP actions, specialists are still eyeing headline disputes — from how current copyright claims against artificial intelligence ( AI) models unfold, to the ongoing drift between European and English courts over the next year. See: Intellectual Property cases to watch in 2025. The biggest UK IP rulings of 2024 Law360, London: Throughout 2024, courts across Britain and Europe delivered some of the most prominent IP decisions in years, with the UK Supreme Court resolving a major trade mark case and lower courts addressing unfair advantage and fair licensing in relation to essential patents. See: The biggest UK IP...
Our observations so far suggest the Unified Patent Court’s approach to inventive step is more all-encompassing, concentrating on whether the skilled person would have been prompted to contemplate the claimed solution and adopt it as a natural progression from the prior art. Further, in contrast to the EPO’s problem–solution methodology, the UPC does not yet appear persuaded that a reasonable expectation of success must be shown to establish obviousness. Given these differing frameworks, there is scope for divergent outcomes on identical facts. Even so, both the UPC and the EPO seem conscious of the danger of inconsistent rulings between the two systems. In this piece, we consider four EPO practices which, though not invariably applied today, may gain traction in the interests of harmonisation, as they arguably align more closely with the UPC’s stance on inventive...
THJ Systems Ltd and another company v Sheridan and another company [2024] EWHC 3195 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment offers practical guidance on the court’s method for quantifying damages in commercial disputes. It underscores the need for procedural compliance, robust and credible evidence, and a careful separation of distinct heads of claim, providing actionable lessons for practitioners dealing with comparable matters in England and Wales... What was the background? Mr Mitchell ( M) developed a software application named Option NET Explorer ( Software) for options trading. He partnered with Mr Sheridan ( S), forming Option NET LLP (the LLP). Under the LLP’s model, M and his company, THJ Systems Ltd ( THJ), would supply the Software for S’s option trading mentoring business, Sheridan Options Mentoring Corporation ( SOM), to use. Relations deteriorated, prompting THJ to terminate SOM’s licence to use the...
The UK Supreme Court set fresh parameters for bad faith claims in a protracted dispute involving broadcasting heavyweight Sky, concluding the registrations were made in bad faith. The ruling is set to reshape IP filing tactics for major brands across the UK. The Court of Appeal also clarified what material can substantiate passing-off claims in the clash between British grocer Tesco and cut-price competitor Lidl. In addition, appellate judges increased the rate Lenovo must pay to owners of patents essential to wireless technologies, a step that practitioners say achieved an important equilibrium amid rising worries that UK courts favoured one side or the other. Law360 revisits key decisions that characterised an exceptionally busy year for European IP specialists. High-profile decision in Sky v Sky Kick In one of the most prominent UK intellectual property judgments in recent times, the Supreme Court in Sky Kick UK Ltd v Sky Ltd...
Meril Life Sciences PVT Ltd & others v Edwards Lifesciences Corporation UPC- Co A-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...
The Xuhui District People’s Court in Shanghai has recently considered the case, representing one of the earliest examples of a streaming service bringing copyright actions against AI firms. As Shanghai contends with Beijing and Shenzhen for the ‘ AI City’ mantle, Xuhui stands out as a central incubator for the region’s AI sector. Its importance lies in the court’s forthcoming guidance on how intellectual property safeguards apply to AI businesses involved in processing training data. It likewise underscores the tribunal’s task of striking a balance, given the Chinese authorities’ backing for both established online platforms and nascent technologies such as AI. Mini Max was accused of leveraging i QIYI’s protected content to train AI, using i QIYI’s copyrighted materials, as alleged in court proceedings......
To begin with, the High Court is slated to hear submissions on whether training generative AI models infringes the copyrights of underlying works, as the first significant infringement action over this trend‑defining technology moves towards trial. The UK’s top court is likewise expected to weigh if an AI‑devised invention merits patent protection, while the government continues to dawdle on putting guardrails around the technology. Intellectual property practitioners also caution about a persistent gulf between the UK’s and EU’s copyright regimes, as a stove manufacturer seeks to probe the limits of what may qualify as an artistic work. Law360 spoke with lawyers to explore the standout disputes and themes to watch in 2025. Getty images v Stability AI After a sluggish start, the UK’s best‑known copyright suit is due for trial in summer 2025 to decide whether AI software that creates synthetic images infringes the rights in the...
In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Patents Trade marks/passing off Designs General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& A Useful information IP Highlights 2024/2025 Copyright & associated rights Testing the outer limits of artistic copyright ( Water Rower v Liking) Water Rower ( UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd (t/a Topiom) [2024] EWHC 2806 ( IPEC) centred on whether a rowing machine, the Water Rower, qualified for protection as a work of artistic craftsmanship under section 4(1)(c) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The matter compelled the court to address a clash between the UK and EU criteria for this category. While earlier rulings had managed to sidestep that divergence, it could not be avoided here. Unable to bridge the divide, the judge...
What are ‘dupes’ and why do consumers buy them? ‘ Dupes’—an abbreviation of duplicates—are pitched as clever stand‑ins for premium items. Unlike counterfeit goods, which try to pass themselves off as the original under the original brand, dupes are framed as savvy alternatives to higher‑end products. Right now, they loom large across fast‑moving consumer goods ( FMCG), and especially in cosmetics, where influencer activity strongly drives demand. Owning an off‑brand replica was once something to keep under wraps, but in today’s fast‑paced, social‑media‑driven world that is no longer true. Shoppers aren’t pretending dupes are authentic; instead, they proudly present them as affordable substitutes. Across platforms— Tik Tok and You Tube in particular—users showcase budget‑friendly finds, attracting admiration for thriftiness and canny, strategic purchasing. Frugality has become a marker of taste and cultural cachet. Bloggers and influencers have been instrumental in the ‘dupe trend’ in recent years,...
Water Rower ( UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd (t/a Topiom) [2024] EWHC 2806 ( IPEC) What are the practical implications of this case? The Water Rower ruling provides a practical touchstone for practitioners seeking to pursue claims that products qualify as works of artistic craftsmanship. Assessing the ‘craftsmanship’ element should remain comparatively straightforward: while CDPA 1988, s 4(1)(c) contains no express definition, the judge relied on Hensher, viewing ‘craftsmanship’ as presupposing particular skill, knowledge and training in producing the work—criteria the Water Rower satisfied. The ‘artistic’ requirement, however, remains as elusive as in Hensher. In addressing this aspect, the court undertook a detailed evaluation of the evidence, placing notable weight on the creator’s intentions at the moment of design. Mr Duke’s motivations were found to be essentially commercial and limited to achieving a business aim: to create a rowing machine with sensory impact. That aim was held...
Urgency requirement Recent jurisprudence underscores that patentees must move quickly once they learn, or become aware, of infringing conduct. If the patentee does not respond without delay, preliminary measures are unlikely to be granted by the court. The authorities have not been entirely uniform on how swiftly an applicant must proceed in this context. In Ortovox v Mammut ( UPC_ CFI_452/2023), the court concluded that, once the applicant holds all information and documentation that credibly supports a promising legal action, there is a one‑month window in which to act. By contrast, in Dyson v Shark Ninja ( UPC_ CFI_443/2023), the allowed period was assessed as two months in which to take steps. That approach was subsequently confirmed in Hand held Products v Scandit ( UPC_ CFI_74/2024), where the court observed that filing the application for a preliminary injunction on the very day on which...
Mandatory descriptions for visual disclaiming techniques The first change to take effect from 1 January 2025 will cover any Hague design registration that relies on a visual disclaiming technique, for example by using dashed lines or a semi‑transparent coloured overlay, to exclude one or more elements of the design shown in its drawings or reproductions. Under this change, whenever a visual disclaiming method appears in the drawings or reproductions of a Hague design registration, that method must be clearly explained in an accompanying description submitted for the same registration. Previously, providing a description in such circumstances was only optional under the earlier approach applied in these cases then......
Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB [2024] EWCA Civ 1453 What are the practical implications of this case? Companies operating in alternative protein and ‘milk’ markets must handle terms that enjoy special protection under EU Regulations with caution, including within the UK. Owing to the UK’s concept of assimilated law, rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union remain influential when interpreting EU Regulations that continue to have effect domestically via EU exit measures. Rigorous due diligence is vital when seeking trade mark registration. Practitioners should examine not only the distinctiveness of proposed signs but also their alignment with industry-specific rules. This judgment may trigger closer oversight of marketing materials by regulators, making it essential for advisers to deliver comprehensive guidance on the relevant legal and regulatory framework. What was the background? Factual background In April 2021, the respondent, Oatly AB, obtained...
In this issue: Confidential information Patents Trade marks/passing off General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Confidential information Court of Appeal clarifies law on state of mind necessary for breach of confidence ( Kieron Corrigan & Co Ltd v Bashir Timol) The Court of Appeal in Kieran Corrigan & Co Ltd v Timol [2024] EWCA Civ 1233 has delivered one of the earliest breach of confidence rulings following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed [2024] UKSC 17. Although it does not engage with Lifestyle Equities in any depth (the appellant abandoned one ground of appeal because of that authority), the decision offers guidance on the extent of primary liability attaching to agents or employees of corporate bodies in breach of...
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...
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
