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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
The Technical Board of Appeal ( TBA) at the European Patent Office decided on 2 July 2024 that the German pharmaceutical heavyweight may retain its patent. It threw out an appeal by the Italian business De Simone, which had maintained that the company had largely duplicated the same chemical compounds reported in earlier studies, according to the ruling made public on 16 September 2024. Bayer contended that gadolinium chelate compounds perform better in MRI scans because they exhibit higher relativity—the measure of an MRI contrast agent’s sensitivity—than the compounds that were used before......
In this issue: Designs 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 Designs IPO introduces statements of grant for international designs Following a successful trial that began in February 2024, the Intellectual Property Office ( IPO) is issuing statements of grant of protection ( SOGs) for international design registrations. These SOGs act as proof and deliver faster assurance that an international registration has been accepted, aiding enforcement of design rights and bringing IPO practice into line with international practice. This development sits within the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs, an initiative enabling stakeholders to protect a design across many countries through a single application to the World Intellectual Property Organisation. See: LNB News 29/08/2024 11......
In this issue: Patents IP and technology Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Patents UPC Court of Appeal clarifies jurisdiction for signatories who have not ratified agreement Law360, London: On 19 August 2024, the Unified Patent Court ( UPC) trimmed the injunction previously secured by Abbott Diabetes Care against a competitor’s continuous glucose monitoring products, also deciding the order could not reach Ireland because it has not ratified the UPC agreement. The Court of Appeal found a regional UPC division had granted more than was sought, effectively ‘more than was requested for’, when it barred Sibio Technology UK, a competitor to Abbott Diabetes Care, from selling its devices in Ireland, a state that had only signed a non-binding intention to join the bloc’s patent...
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court found that the lower court had gone beyond the relief sought when it prohibited Sibio Technology UK, a competitor to Abbott Diabetes Care, from selling its devices in Ireland, which had merely signalled a non-binding intention to join the bloc's patent system. Ireland was not a contracting member state and therefore could not be treated as covered by Abbott's request for a preliminary injunction, the appellate court said. Abbott's unit, which sells its Free Style Libre devices for people with diabetes, sought a preliminary injunction in all contracting member states where the patent in issue was in force, namely the Netherlands, Germany, France, Ireland and the UK, according to the judgment. The first court held that ......
In this issue: Patents Daily and weekly news bulletins Fresh and revised content Dates for your diary Trackers Helpful information Patents Patents Court invalidates Abbott continuous glucose monitoring device patent in ongoing dispute with Dexcom ( Abbott Diabetes Care v Dexcom) The Patents Court, in Abbott Diabetes Care Inc v Dexcom Inc [2024] EWHC 1664 ( Pat), found that Abbott’s patent EP ( UK) 3 730 044 B1 (‘ EP044’) concerning defined aspects of continuous glucose monitors ( CGMs) incorporating an integrated sensor together with a needle insertion and retraction mechanism, was obvious in the light of the prior art......
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc and others v Dexcom Inc and others [2024] EWHC 1664 ( Pat) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling forms part of the parties’ wider, cross-border battle over CGM technology. The conclusions on infringement and validity are, for the most part, tethered to the facts of this dispute. Nonetheless, the court’s observations on the deployment of expert evidence will interest practitioners, and stand as a further reminder that experts instructed in patent litigation must operate in the correct technical domain. Here, the technological sophistication suggested that the hypothetical skilled team would need a broad span of knowledge and experience, which a lone expert might find difficult to encompass. Where more than one expert is retained, they should be permitted to review each other’s reports so that the combined competencies of the skilled team are mirrored in the...
In this issue Patents Designs General IP IP and technology Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Patents The Patentability of Artificial Intelligence (the UKIPO v Emotional Perception AI) The Court of Appeal has reversed the contentious High Court ruling in the Emotional Perception matter ( Comptroller- General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks v Emotional Perception AI Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 825). It held that Artificial Neural Networks are to be regarded as computer programmes that trigger the exclusion in patent law. ANNs may still be protected where they deliver a technical contribution. In that vein, the court concluded there is nothing exceptional about machine learning, which patent law should treat like any other software. The invention here concerned recommending media files and was found not to provide a technical contribution, setting aside the High Court’s decision. Written by Peter Arrowsmith, partner at Gill Jennings & Every. See News...
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright; Wright and another company v Coinbase Global Inc and other companies; Wright and another company v Payward, Inc and other companies and other cases [2024] EWHC 1809 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Applying settled principles, the court underlined the breadth and adaptability of injunctive relief, noting the existing authority that novel circumstances can justify new forms of injunction. It also addressed the imperative to act where the IP regime is being misused to choke creativity and technical progress, thereby defeating the system’s underlying purpose. The court was required to balance freedom of expression against the need to deter those minded to advance dishonest claims, while also weighing the prospective damage to legitimate commercial activity were relief to be withheld. Taken together, these considerations justified orders restraining the making or pursuit of claims or...
In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Trade marks/passing off Patents IP and technology 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 Copyright & associated rights Injunction granted against Craig Wright ( Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright; Wright v BTC Core) In High Court proceedings brought by Crypto Open Patent Alliance ( COPA) against Craig Steven Wright, the court found squarely and decisively against Dr Wright’s assertions that he created Bitcoin as ‘ Satoshi Nakamoto’. On the final day of the hearing earlier this year, Mr Justice Mellor stated the evidence was overwhelming and unequivocal: Dr Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin White Paper, did not act under the name Satoshi Nakamoto between 2008 and 2011, did not devise the Bitcoin system, and did not write the early iterations of the Bitcoin software at all. The recently issued written...
AGA Rangemaster Group Ltd v UK Innovations Group Ltd and another [2024] EWHC 1727 ( IPEC) What are the practical implications of this case? Marketing of re-sale goods Sellers of second-hand goods should act carefully when promoting such items and when referring to the original seller’s brand name. Re-sellers should take measures to avoid suggesting any commercial association with the original trade mark proprietor, thereby limiting the scope for potential third party enforcement actions. References to the original brand on websites, and even on invoices, could be treated as part of the branding of the item being offered, rather than merely descriptive, innocuous marketing language. Joint tortfeasance As set out in Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed [2024] UKSC 17 (at para [137]), there are two distinct bases for accessory liability: (i) procuring an infringement; and (ii) assisting another to infringe pursuant to a common design. In either case, the...
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright; Wright and other companies v BTC Core and others [2024] EWHC 1198 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? At the conclusion of the case earlier this year, Mr Justice Mellor stated that, over the course of the trial, Dr Wright had repeatedly and extensively misled the court and had fabricated documents said to substantiate his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. A central unresolved issue, however, concerned the injunctive relief to be imposed on Dr Wright. The not-for-profit COPA sought a series of injunctions intended to stop him from continuing to advance his false claims in proceedings against Bitcoin developers and others within the cryptocurrency community. The court’s ruling grants injunctions restraining Dr Wright (and the other claimants in the related claims) from bringing further proceedings, in this or other...
The hearing stemmed from an infringement action lodged soon after the court’s launch on 1 June 2023. It took place on 16 May 2024, with judgment handed down on 3 July 2024. Encouragingly, the UPC has nearly achieved its ambition of delivering a final ruling within twelve months of commencement and within six weeks of the oral session. This timetable broadly reflects the UPC’s target of a decision within twelve months of commencement, and within six weeks after the oral hearing. The disputed patent was EP 3375337, owned by Franz Kaldewei Gmb H & Co KG, concerning a ‘ Bathtub Sanitation Device’. As claimant, Franz Kaldewei alleged that the defendant, Bette Gmb H & Co KG, infringed claims 1–3 across several contracting EU Member States where the patent remained in force— Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the...
In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Designs Trade marks/passing off Patents Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Copyright & associated rights Chancery Division grants anti-suit injunction and related order preventing threat of proceedings ( Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright; Wright v Coinbase Global Inc; Wright v Payward, Inc) The Chancery Division in Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright; Wright v Coinbase Global Inc; Wright v Payward, Inc [2024] EWHC 1809 ( Ch) issued determinations in litigation addressing who created Bitcoin. The court had previously found that W, who asserted he was the inventor ( Satoshi), was not the originator and had relied on falsified documents to bolster his position. Among other matters, the court decided that the claimant in one of the relevant actions was...
What are the practical implications of this case? The key point is that, where UK rights underpin the dispute, appeals lie only against EUIPO Board of Appeal decisions dated on or before IP completion day (11.00 pm on 31 December 2020). It is still uncertain how the Board of Appeal will dispose of the matter now sent back for reconsideration, including whether it will be rejected on the simple basis that Indo European Foods’ earlier right no longer constitutes a valid ground of opposition in the EU. What was the background? Mr Chakari lodged an EUTM application on 14 June 2017 for a figurative sign, covering goods made from rice in Classes 30 and 31 (see image at para [15] of the judgment). On 13 October 2017, Indo European Foods submitted a notice of opposition relying on the earlier unregistered UK word mark BASMATI for rice,...
From Munich, the UPC’s office issued a decision that wiped out an Amgen patent across all 17 EU Member States, covering key patent venues including Germany, France, the Netherlands and Italy. The outcome represents a significant victory for Regeneron and Sanofi, which produce Praluent, a cholesterol therapy that competes with Repatha. According to the UPC, ‘ The patent as granted is invalid because it does not involve an inventive step’. Since 2014, the companies have been locked in a dispute with Amgen, which has maintained that the manufacture of Praluent infringes wording in multiple patents held by Amgen. In the US, the case appeared before a jury in a Delaware federal court, was subsequently overturned, and later proceeded to the highest court in the US in 2023, after many years of legal wrangling......
At the Court of Appeal, judges rejected Emotional Perception AI’s assertion that the technology behind its recommendation algorithm was ‘fundamentally different’ from accepted meanings of a ‘computer’ and a ‘computer’ programme. Writing for the court on 19 July 2024, Judge Colin Birss stated: ‘ The first point to make is that, however it is implemented, such a machine [an artificial neural network] is clearly a computer—it is a machine for processing information’. In turn, the court aligned with the Comptroller- General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks that the Patent Act 1977 ( PA 1977) provisions excluding patentability for computer programmes applied to Emotional Perception’s invention. The judges also concluded that the judge at an earlier hearing was wrong to hold that the AI company’s artificial neural......
Res Judicata provides post‑ Brexit shelter for IP rights ( Praesidiad & Guardiar v Zaun) Praesidiad Holding BVBA (formerly Betafence Holding BVBA) and another company v Zaun Ltd [2024] EWHC 1549 ( Pat) What are the practical implications of this case? As the court observed at [62] of the judgment, an inferred disapplication of the statutory form of res judicata in Article 86(5) of Regulation ( EC) 6/2002 is far from enough to infer that parliament intended to set aside the long‑standing principles of res judicata and abuse of process. In essence, the court would not permit a re‑run of issues already taken to a final determination at the EUIPO. Here, the dispute related to the validity of an RCD and its UK cloned right. Nevertheless, the same analysis may equally catch other rights duplicated onto UK registers following Brexit, for example EU trade marks...
In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Trade marks/passing off Patents IP and technology General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& A Useful information Copyright & associated rights On 30 April 2024, the Court of Justice handed down its decision in La Quadrature du Net ( Case C-470/21), setting out when public bodies may keep and obtain access to personal data — in particular IP addresses — to counter online copyright violations. The court confirmed that any such access is allowed only in narrowly defined circumstances and must be subject to prior judicial scrutiny. The ruling carries notable consequences for data protection and the freedoms of internet users across the EU. Authored by Alexander Schmalenberger, knowledge lawyer at Taylor Wessing in Hamburg. See News...
The last government promised a voluntary code of practice clarifying how IP law intersects with AI, but it never materialised. The incoming Labour administration must tackle this and bring certainty to both creative and AI communities. Labour has signalled elements of its stance in its plan for arts, culture and creative industries, and, prior to Parliament’s dissolution ahead of the July 2024 general election, the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee outlined steps it urged the next administration to adopt. We explore what the immediate agenda might entail now that Labour is set to govern... AI v IP? Many leading AI models, including the engines behind generative tools, are trained on publicly available material, often harvested from the web, much of which is covered by IP rights. The creative industries broadly argue that deploying IP-protected works to train models that may then...
Dish Technologies Llc (a company incorporated under the laws of the state of Colorado, USA) and another company v Aylo Premium Ltd (a company incorporated under the laws of Cyprus) and other companies; Aylo Premium Ltd (a company incorporated under the laws of Cyprus) and another company v Dish Technologies Llc (a company incorporated under the laws of the state of Colorado, USA) [2024] EWHC 1310 ( Pat) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling clarifies the stance of the UK Patents Court when faced with a request for an accelerated trial timetable in patent matters before it. Under the Practice Statement, the Court endeavours, where feasible, to have patent actions listed for trial within 12 months of issue counted from the date the claim is issued. Listings begin from the current Trial Window publicised by the Chancery Division Listing Office;...
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
