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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Boghossian v IOP Publishing Ltd [2025] EWHC 3317 ( IPEC) What are the practical implications of this case? This case underlines the importance of keeping clear records of who contributed what, so that copyright in collaborative works can be established. The joint authorship principles explored here are not confined to scholarly articles and may extend across other sectors. Take software development: code is frequently produced collectively, both through live co-working in ‘pair programming’ (with a ‘driver’ writing code while a ‘navigator’ simultaneously reviews and advises) and through deferred collaboration using source control structures (where colleagues examine or amend proposed changes before they are accepted into the codebase). Either route can trigger questions about joint authorship. In the creative sphere, it is common for two writers to craft a screenplay together (for instance, Florence Foster Jenkins considered in Kogan v Martin [2019] EWCA Civ 1645), and books are...
Dryrobe Ltd v Caesr Group Ltd (trading as D- Robe Outdoors) [2025] EWHC 3167 ( IPEC) What are the practical implications of this case? Exercise care when adopting descriptive terms as indicators of source. Marketing teams should balance the ability of a proposed trade mark to communicate clearly to consumers the nature of the product against the risk that, in legal terms, its protection will be more limited. Genericide is a demanding threshold, and the danger of a mark becoming generic can be managed proactively. Specialist legal advisers can help businesses devise strategies to counter generic usage, and marketing can promote goods/services in a way that makes clear to the public the sign is a brand name. The claimant deployed both approaches in this matter, and the court took them into account when finding that DRYROBE was not...
Edozo Ltd v Valos ( UK) Ltd [2026] EWHC 93 ( IPEC) What are the practical implications of this case? The practical consequences of this judgment are significant and noteworthy for practitioners pursuing copyright infringement actions, particularly where the subject matter is software and its source code. Although His Honour Judge Hacon determined that the Valos Steps were not protected by copyright within the Valos source code, he nevertheless pointed to alternative routes by which the intellectual originality invested in devising them might have been safeguarded through other legal regimes. In particular, Hacon J indicated that literary or artistic copyright could have subsisted in the Valos Steps as works in their own right and, moreover, that if the Valos Steps were sufficiently inventive, Valos might have sought patent protection, provided the invention did not fall foul of Article 52(2) and (3) of the...
In this issue: Designs General IP Copyright & associated rights IP rights and competition law Lex Talk®IP: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Designs IPEC struck out claim for account of profits in actionable threat proceedings ( Luxe World v Touch of Vogue) The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ( IPEC) considered a defence application to remove Luxe World’s request for an account of profits as a form of relief in a claim alleging actionable threats of proceedings for infringement of a registered design. The defendants additionally applied for an order compelling Luxe World either to quantify the value of its claim or to pay the full court fee of £10,000 in place of the £646 already tendered. The court held that an account of profits cannot be granted as a...
RMK Maritime ( Europe) Ltd and another company v CMB. Tech NV (formerly known as Euronav NV) [2025] EWHC 2739 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment has notable consequences for commercial lawyers advising on professional services contracts, M& A advisory mandates, and restitutionary claims. Prevalence of contract over restitution The court confirmed that unjust enrichment is a fallback doctrine, ordinarily inapplicable where a binding contract regulates the parties’ dealings. Even where certain services might be said to sit beyond the precise contractual remit, a restitutionary claim will fail if it would cut across the contractually agreed allocation of risk and remuneration. Legal force of NOM clauses and variation provisions The advisory agreement required any change to scope to be recorded in writing and signed by authorised representatives. The court regarded this as compelling evidence that informal...
In this issue: General IP Patents Trade marks Copyright & associated rights Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information General IP Key developments in 2025 and horizon scanning for 2026 For an overview of notable UK IP developments in 2025 and a preview of what lies ahead in 2026, see News Analysis: IP—key developments in 2025 and horizon scanning for 2026. The piece covers patents, trade marks, designs, copyright and artificial intelligence ( AI), plus procedural changes at the UK Intellectual Property Office ( UKIPO). Patents Court of appeal highlights importance of consistent claim construction ( Abbott v Dexcom) The Court of Appeal upheld Abbott’s appeal, setting aside the revocation of its European ( UK) patent for a continuous glucose monitoring ( CGM) device. It found the High Court had...
For more on significant movements in Information Law, consult Trackers—overview and, in particular, these key Practice Notes: Data ( Use and Access) Act—tracker UK e Privacy law reform—tracker The UK NIS Regulations—timeline ICO consultations tracker 2025 Additional trackers can be found within our EU Law practice area, including the following Practice Notes: EU GDPR—cross-border enforcement reforms—tracker EU e Privacy Directive—tracker EU Cybersecurity initiatives tracker The EU NIS 2 Directive—timeline EU GDPR— EDPB supranational level guidance tracker Further commentary and updates are delivered via our current awareness alerts and highlights. Select ‘ Create Alert’ on your ‘ Alerts’ tab and adjust your personal settings to subscribe. Confidential information What were the key developments in 2025? In the UK, section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 ( VPA 2024) commenced on 1 October 2025. This provision places on a...
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc and others v Dexcom Inc and others [2025] EWCA Civ 1633 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision adds little to the law on inventive step, yet it does spotlight several best‑practice lessons. The court applied the orthodox Pozzoli framework. The appeal succeeded because the judge did not apply their own construction of the claims, and there was no evidence showing that a specific embodiment could render the invention obvious. Taken together, these points emphasise that parties should: Settle claim construction carefully at the outset Advance alternative obviousness lines where appropriate Avoid blending distinct embodiments within a prior art disclosure Secondly, although the dispute had settled, Abbott still pursued an appeal against revocation of its patent. With the CGM market valued at many billions of pounds, safeguarding and enforcing its rights—and weighing whether to...
For detailed updates on key IP developments, see these Practice Notes: Patents tracker— UK Trade marks tracker— UK Designs tracker— UK Copyright and databases tracker— UK ‘ One IPO’ transformation programme—tracker DABUS AI patent proceedings—tracker Copyright and AI training—international tracker For EU developments, refer to News Analysis: EU Law—key developments in 2025 and horizon scanning for 2026. Ongoing updates and commentary are available via our current awareness alerts and highlights. Select ‘ Create Alert’ in your ‘ Alerts’ tab and adjust your personal preferences to subscribe. Copyright What were the key developments in 2025? Getty Images v Stability AI On 4 November 2025, the High Court handed down its decision in Getty Images ( US) Inc and others v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 ( Ch), the first English judgment addressing generative AI. Getty Images, a major online...
Statement follows in full. US creators launch ‘ Stealing Isn’t Innovation’ campaign targeting tech companies’ sweeping theft of copyrighted works. The effort spotlights harm to American creators and US jobs, economic growth, and the country’s international standing. Washington, DC (22 January 2026) — The Human Artistry Campaign has unveiled an advocacy initiative representing a wide cross-section of the American creative community to challenge Big Tech’s unlawful mass harvesting of copyrighted material to build and fuel their Gen AI platforms. In the scramble to lead the new Gen AI frontier, profit-seeking technology firms — from some of the richest companies on the planet to private equity–backed ventures — have copied vast amounts of creative content online without authorisation or paying the people who made it. This large-scale rip-off endangers US employment, stifles growth, and weakens the global ‘soft power’ long underpinned by the US...
Abraaj Investment Management Ltd (in liquidation) and other companies v Kes Power Ltd and others [2026] EWHC 65 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The recent High Court judgment in Abraaj Investment Management v Kes Power closely analyses assignment principles within secured lending. In particular, the court considers when estoppel can aid a lender confronted with defective or uncertain security. The ruling also explores several adjacent issues: the potential for assignments to be implied, whether ‘no assignment’ clauses are tempered by a reasonableness qualification, and matters of consideration in acknowledgements of notice. While estoppel provided the lender with a solution on the facts, the decision emphatically reinforces a fundamental point: only the entity to which the debt is actually owed should be the assignor. The realities of group operations can obscure the true creditor, meaning it is not always obvious which...
The High Court said it could not quash a November 2024 order by the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, which made it law that US performers are not entitled to 'equitable remuneration' when their sound recordings are broadcast to the public in the UK. The American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada and SAG- AFTRA contended the order breached the UK's obligations under international law and ought to be set aside. The court disagreed, stressing that treaties do not form part of English law unless and until Parliament incorporates them through legislation. Justice Stephen Males warned that, if the position were otherwise, the executive could effectively legislate by entering treaties, eroding parliamentary sovereignty. On that basis, the unions' challenge was held to be non-justiciable, as success would require the court to construe and give domestic effect to...
In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Designs AI and IP Confidential Information Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Copyright & associated rights Court of Justice clarifies rules on copyright levies for tech retailers Law360, London: On 15 January 2026, in Bluechip Computer AG v ZPȔ ( Case C-822/24), the Court of Justice confirmed that EU law allows member states to adopt measures compelling electronics retailers to pay levies to rights holders, on the premise that users may employ their devices to reproduce protected works. See: Court of Justice clarifies rules on copyright levies for tech retailers. Judicial review claim dismissed ( R (on the application of AFM) v So S for Science, Innovation and Technology) The Administrative Court, in R (on the application of AFM) v Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology [2026] EWHC 91 ( Admin), rejected a judicial review brought by US...
Parliament was told by DCMS that the UK government will run a pilot of its Creative Content Exchange from January 2026, offering creators a route to licence their material for AI training. The broader consultation on AI and copyright will add further sessions, yet there remains no practical solution in sight for the government’s favoured model, which it believes would strike a balance between creators’ rights and the needs of AI developers seeking up-to-date datasets. Ruth Hannant, DCMS’ Director General for Policy, told the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee that the exchange, trailed in summer 2025, will operate for 12 months from January 2026 with a review halfway through. She said the initiative is experimental, with a test-and-learn approach, and stressed that the state-backed platform is not intended to supplant existing marketplaces. However, growing worries suggest it could dampen...
The Court of Justice The Court of Justice stated that EU rules do not bar Member States from obliging retailers of storage media to pay equitable remuneration to copyright holders. That position applies even when those retailers supply devices to commercial customers, the court noted. However, the Court of Justice also indicated that retailers may avoid such levies by proving that private users will not obtain a device to copy protected material for purposes that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial. Retailers could further demonstrate that any use would be solely at a level regarded as causing no more than minimal harm to right-holders......
UKIPO SEARCH (patent examiner search tool) The UKIPO’s in-house patent searching platform is called SEARCH. The UKIPO describes it as using ‘ AI-driven concepts’ to order results by similarity and, for the first time, by relevance. The tool is designed to help examiners analyse and progressively refine their searches as they proceed. In essence, it supports examiners in more efficiently identifying prior art, while the detailed, critical assessment of the documents remains with the examiner. Consequently, it should free patent examiners to devote more time to substantive analysis. AI allocation tool (internal case allocation/routing to examiners) The UKIPO has also revealed a ‘new AI allocation tool’ within its digital services, which automatically assigns patent applications to examiners with the appropriate technical expertise. The UKIPO states that this task is now completed instantly, whereas it previously took 14 days. Automated case allocation is regarded as a...
The General Court held that Lego A/ S’s EU-registered design for the 2x1 clip block lacked 'individual character', and therefore did not merit any design protection. In March 2021, Guangdong Qman Toys Industry Co. Ltd formally petitioned the EUIPO to invalidate the Lego design, contending it failed to create a distinct 'overall impression' when compared with the 1x1 clip block, another Lego piece. In November 2022, the EUIPO’s Invalidity Division backed Quandong Qman Toys and annulled the design. Lego appealed thereafter, challenging it......
In this issue: General IP Patents Trade marks/passing off Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& A Useful information General IP IPO publishes guidance on 25% fee increases for IP rights from April 2026 The Intellectual Property Office ( IPO) confirms, pending parliamentary approval, an average 25% uplift to fees for designs, trade marks and patents from 1 April 2026, following a lengthy period without revisions and 32% cumulative inflation since 2016. The revised charges apply to applications and renewals filed on or after that date; current fees hold until 31 March 2026. Special provisions cover deferred design registrations and trade mark applications in grace periods or under the Right Start scheme, so earlier fees can still apply where deadlines are met. Renewal costs turn on both the due date and the...
In this issue: AI and IP Trade marks/passing off Patents Designs General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information AI and IP Getty wins permission to appeal Stability AI copyright case Law360, London: On 16 December 2025, Getty Images Inc succeeded in its bid, in Getty Images ( US) Inc v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 3343 ( Ch), to reinstate part of its copyright infringement action against Stability AI Ltd. The High Court held the dispute presents a significant issue about generative models that warrants examination by the Court of Appeal. See: Getty wins permission to appeal Stability AI copyright case. Actors vote to refuse image, voice scans over AI fears Law360, London: Performers working in film and television across the UK have voted to decline digital scans on set,...
GXD‑ Bio lost UPC infringement case against Myriad Genetics GXD‑ Bio, a South Korean biotech, saw its Unified Patent Court infringement bid against Myriad Genetics and its European affiliates fail, after the court struck down the breast cancer testing patent and rejected the infringement allegations. In a ruling issued by the Munich Local Division on 19 December, the patent—directed to a method for analysing gene expression data in breast cancer tissue samples—was found to include added subject‑matter and could not be upheld, even in amended guise. Relying on the UPC’s established approach to construing claims and assessing added matter, the court underlined that patent claims must not extend beyond what a skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously from the original application......
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
