sa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½

Expert Analysis

• Pension Scheme Ruling Elucidates Conversion Issues

  

  In Newell Trustees v. Newell Rubbermaid UK Services, the High Court recently upheld a pension plan's conversion of final salary benefits to money purchase benefits, a welcome conclusion that considered several notable issues, such as how to construe pension deeds and when contracts made outside scheme rules can determine benefits, say Ian Gordon and Jamie Barnett at Gowling.

• New Fraud Prevention Offense May Not Make Much Difference

  

  By targeting only large organizations, the Economic Crime Act's new failure to prevent fraud offense is striking in that, despite its breadth, it will affect so few companies, and is therefore unlikely to help ordinary victims, says Andrew Smith at Corker Binning.

• Aldi Design Infringement Case Highlights Assessment Issues

  

  The forthcoming English Court of Appeal decision in Marks and Spencer v. Aldi, regarding the alleged infringement of design rights, could provide practitioners with new guidance, particularly in relation to the relevant date for assessment of infringement and the weight that should be attributed to certain design elements in making this assessment, say Rory Graham and Georgia Davis at RPC.

• Generative AI Raises IP, Data Protection And Contracts Issues

  

  As the EU's recent agreement on the Artificial Intelligence Act has fueled businesses' interest in adopting generative AI tools, it is crucial to understand how these tools utilize material to generate output and what questions to ask in relation to intellectual property, data privacy and contracts, say lawyers at Deloitte Legal.

• Decoding UK Case Law On Anti-Suit Injunctions

  

  The English High Court's forthcoming decision on an anti-suit injunction filed in Augusta Energy v. Top Oil last month will provide useful guidance on application grounds for practitioners, but, pending that ruling, other recent decisions offer key considerations when making or resisting claims when there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract, says Abigail Healey at Quillon Law.

• Litigation Funding Implications Amid Post-PACCAR Disputes

  

  An English tribunal's recent decision in Neill v. Sony, allowing an appeal on the enforceability of a litigation funding agreement, highlights how the legislative developments on funding limits following the U.K. Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Paccar v. Competition Appeal Tribunal may affect practitioners, say Andrew Leitch and Anoma Rekhi at BCLP.

• EU Product Liability Reforms Represent A Major Shakeup

  

  The recent EU Parliament and Council provisional agreement on a new product liability regime in Europe revises the existing strict liability rules for the first time in 40 years by easing the burden of proof to demonstrate that a product is defective, a hurdle that many had previously failed to overcome, say Anushi Amin and Edward Turtle at Cooley.

• Zimbabwe Ruling Bolsters UK's Draw As Arbitration Enforcer

  

  An English court's recent decision in Border Timbers v. Zimbabwe, finding that state immunity was irrelevant to registering an arbitration award, emphasizes the U.K.'s reputation as a creditor-friendly destination for award enforcement, say Jon Felce and Tulsi Bhatia at Cooke Young.

• Building Safety Ruling Offers Clarity On Remediation Orders

  

  The First-tier Tribunal's recent decision in Triathlon Homes v. Stratford Village Development, holding that it was just and equitable to award a remediation contribution order, will undoubtedly encourage parties to consider this recovery route for building defects more seriously, say lawyers at Simmons and Simmons.

• How AI Inventorship Is Evolving In The UK, EU And US

  

  While the U.K. Supreme Court's recent decision in Thaler v. Comptroller-General is the latest in a series of decisions by U.K., U.S. and EU authorities that artificial intelligence systems cannot be named as inventors in patents, the guidance from these jurisdictions suggests that patents may be granted to human inventors that use AI as a sophisticated tool, say lawyers at Mayer Brown.

• EU Report Is A Valuable Guide For Data Controllers

  

  The European Data Protection Board recently published a study of cases handled by national supervisory authorities where uniform application of the General Data Protection Regulation was prioritized, providing data controllers with arguments for an adequate response to manage liability in case of a breach and useful insights into how security requirements are assessed, say Thibaut D'hulst and Malik Aouadi at Van Bael.

• UK Court Ruling Reinforces CMA's Info-Gathering Powers

  

  An English appeals court's recent decision in the BMW and Volkswagen antitrust cases affirmed that the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority can request information from entities outside the U.K., reinstating an important implement in the CMA's investigative toolkit, say lawyers at White & Case.

• UK Ruling Revitalizes Discussions On Harmonizing AI And IP

  

  The U.K. Supreme Court's decision in Thaler v. Comptroller-General last month has reinvigorated ongoing discussions about how the developments in artificial intelligence fit within the existing intellectual property legislative landscape, illustrating that effective regulation will be critical as the value and influence of this sector grows, say Nick White and Olivia Gray at Charles Russell.

• Employers Can 'Waive' Goodbye To Unknown Future Claims

  

  The Scottish Court of Session's recent decision in Bathgate v. Technip Singapore, holding that unknown future claims in a qualifying settlement agreement can be waived, offers employers the possibility of achieving a clean break when terminating employees and provides practitioners with much-needed guidance on how future cases might be dealt with in court, says Natasha Nichols at Farrer & Co.

• AI Inventorship Patent Options After UK Supreme Court Ruling

  

  The U.K. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks that an AI system cannot be an inventor raises questions about alternative approaches to patent protection for AI-generated inventions and how the decision might affect infringement and validity disputes around such patents, says David Knight at Brown Rudnick.