Q&As

Q&As

These Q&As seek to address common questions faced when dealing with IP matters.

The Q&As supplement and link to other more detailed content within Lexis®+ UK Practical Guidance, but are intentionally short. It is anticipated that a brief Q&A will be most helpful when you need a quick overview of an issue and its likely impact. This might arise, for example, for lawyers needing to provide advice, provide business development or training at short notice. The Q&A content on Lexis®+ UK Practical Guidance is date stamped. This date is the publish date

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest IP News

Shell beats payment tech providers appeal over QR patent

Law360, London: The Court of Appeal has rejected a payment tech provider's application to revive its patent for printed QR codes in a battle with Shell, ruling that its key idea of having a 'static' code that multiple customers could use was obvious.

Court of Appeal clarifies law on state of mind necessary for breach of confidence (Kieron Corrigan & Co Ltd v Bashir Timol)

Information Law analysis: The Court of Appeal has handed down one of the first breach of confidence judgments since the Supreme Court’s decision in Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed. While this decision does not meaningfully consider Lifestyle Equities (indeed, the appellant conceded on one of its grounds of appeal due to that judgment), it provides further clarification on the scope of the primary liability of agents or employees of corporate entities in breach of confidence proceedings. It further considers the state of mind which the claimant must establish to have been held by the defendant to sustain a breach of confidence allegation. The judgment also considers and provides guidance for how to deal with documents disclosed late in proceedings (in this case, after a trial on liability and during disclosure as to quantum), and particularly on whether to provide for a retrial in light of such evidence. Written by Mark Nichols, senior associate at Potter Clarkson LLP.

Haemophilia gene therapy patent valid and infringed (Pfizer v uniQure)

IP analysis: The Patents Court rejected Pfizer’s revocation action against uniQure’s patent EP(UK) 3,581,650 (EP 650) which protects a ‘Factor IX polypeptide mutant and a method for its production’ and forms the basis for uniQure’s haemophilia drug ‘Hemgenix’. Consequently, Pfizer may not currently launch its own haemophilia gene therapy drug ‘Beqvez’ (approved by the European Medicines Agency on 24 July 2024) in the UK, but has indicated that it intends to appeal the decision. Pfizer, while admitting infringement should EP 650 be found valid, sought to argue that EP 650 was invalid. Pfizer’s case was that the specific amino acid substitution used in EP 650 was obvious and lacked an inventive step over a single piece of prior art. In reaching its findings, the Court was strongly influenced by ‘secondary evidence’ relating to what real world research teams were doing at the relevant time and was somewhat critical of Pfizer’s experts. Written by Fergus Brown associate, solicitor and Dan Byrne partner, barrister at Venner Shipley LLP.

UK Judiciary explores AI's impact on courts and intellectual property

The UK Judiciary has examined the potential impacts of artificial intelligence on the justice system and intellectual property law. In a speech by Lord Justice Birss, key considerations include AI's role in summarizing legal documents, potential future AI decision-making in certain cases, and challenges in patent law. The Judiciary has issued guidance on AI use, emphasizing data privacy and user responsibility. Recent cases, such as Emotional Perception and Thaler, have clarified AI's status in software patentability and inventorship. The speech also highlights emerging issues in determining human versus machine inventorship and AI's influence on obviousness in patent law.