A standardized Next-Generation Networking (NGN) architecture for telecom communications providers that want to provide mobile and fixed multimedia services. It uses a Voice-over-IP (VoIP) implementation based on a 3GPP standardized implementation of SIP, and runs over the standard Internet Protocol (IP). Existing phone systems (both packet-switched and circuit-switched) are supported.

Date News Analysis Brief description of News Analysis 9 September 2021 Deadline for filing for UK trade mark or design right approaching LNB News 09/09/2021 100 The deadline for filing for a UK trade mark or design right and claiming an earlier filing date for EU trade marks and design applications that were pending before 1 January 2021 is approaching. Customers have until 30 September 2021 to apply to register the same EU trade mark or design right as a UK right and claim the earlier filing date of the pending right as well as any valid international priority they have on the pending EU application along with any UK seniority claims recorded against it. After an application is submitted, the Intellectual Property Office will treat the pending EU application as a UK application and examine it under UK law. 6 July 2021 European Commission withholds consent for UK to accede to Lugano Convention LNB News 06/07/2021 99 The Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) of Switzerland has announced that it has received a letter

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) enable their owner to exclude third parties from use of the relevant protected subject matter. Excluding, or threatening to exclude, third parties in this way typically raises no concerns under competition law. However, where the IPR owner holds a ‘dominant position’ (ie a position of economic power that enables it to behave, to a large extent, independently of effective competition pressures), exercising such exclusionary rights may have implications under Article 102 the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). IPRs take a number of forms (eg trademarks, copyrights, patents), and competition issues can arise in a number of circumstances. However, they most frequently arise in relation to patents and software copyrights. Abuse of dominance under Article 102 TFEU EU case law establishes that a dominant position confers a special responsibility on the dominant entity. The special responsibility requires the entity to refrain from forms of competition which are not ‘on the merits’. The amorphous scope of this concept generates a potentially

Broadly speaking, an intra-group reorganisation involves the movement of assets between companies within the same group. The reorganisation may necessitate the creation of new companies within the group and the liquidation of old ones. This Practice Note examines the key IP and IT issues to consider in an intra-group reorganisation scenario, including relevant licensing considerations. While intra-group reorganisations are, by their very nature, internal arrangements, it is important that they are carried out with due consideration. Failure to take appropriate care may jeopardise the value of assets, the feasibility of future reorganisations or the potential for future transactions with third parties, and incur unwelcome tax liabilities. An intra-group reorganisation can take many different forms ranging from the straightforward to the very complex. The structure of the reorganisation will be largely determined by the reason(s) behind it. Common reasons for intra-group reorganisation include: • the impending sale of the whole or part of the group of companies • initial public offerings (IPOs) • the integration of recently acquired companies, and • simply streamlining a group’s

Introduction to arbitration This Practice Note sets out a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of choosing arbitration for resolving IP disputes. It covers the common characteristics of IP disputes and the reasons why arbitration might be particularly suitable or unsuitable for resolving them. It also sets out practical points on the management of arbitration proceedings in the context of an IP dispute, and on drafting arbitration clauses. Arbitration is a procedure in which a dispute is submitted, by agreement of the parties, to one or more arbitrators (the tribunal) who make a binding decision (an award) on the dispute. In choosing arbitration, the parties opt for a private dispute resolution procedure instead of going to court. Arbitration results in a decision which is final, binds the parties and is enforceable against the losing party. In this Practice Note, we refer generally to ‘arbitration’ as a catch-all term, although ‘international arbitration’, ‘ad hoc arbitration’, ‘administered arbitration’ or ‘institutional arbitration’ may be more accurate in context. For an introduction to the key features of arbitration, see Practice Note: Arbitration—an

This Practice Note describes the process of mediation, key practical issues and documents that may be utilised at a mediation in IP disputes. It covers an overview of mediation, which cases to mediate, when to mediate, choosing a mediator, the contents of a mediation agreement, key documentation, preparation and planning for mediation, how the mediation session is conducted, settlement and costs. It also considers the mediation service offered by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Mediation is a voluntary and confidential attempt by two or more parties to reach a negotiated settlement to a dispute. It is conducted by the parties with the assistance of a neutral third party (the mediator) who facilitates a resolution. There is nothing unique about mediating an IP dispute in comparison to other disputes. The conduct of any mediation depends on the nature of the dispute and the parties’ intentions and therefore the issues involved will guide the considerations outlined in this Practice Note (such as the choice of mediator, the papers prepared, etc). However, it is worth bearing in mind that IP disputes

This Practice Note considers intellectual property (IP) rights in the context of certain artist/songwriter-focused music agreements. In particular, the Practice Note outlines the various rights that subsist in a song and considers how these can be exploited. Issues relating to brand protection, AI and image rights for musical artists are also considered. IP and other rights relevant in the music industry Copyright subsisting in music Copyright forms the basis on which songs and other musical works can be licensed and commercially exploited. It is important to recognise that there are different types of copyright. Provided that the originality threshold is met, and the song has been recorded in material form, then: • copyright will subsist in the musical composition (or score) as a musical work • the lyrics of a song will be separately protected as a literary work • the recording of the song will attract separate copyright protection as a sound recording In addition to the principal rights attaching to music, other forms of copyright may be relevant in the context

The luxury goods sector IP rights are critical for all businesses to protect the development of new products and to create a brand in the market. Generally, IP rights apply to all business sectors equally and it is possible for businesses in very different markets to obtain IP right protection. While the underlying tests for the protection and enforcement of IP rights are broadly the same, luxury products have the potential to enjoy an enhanced level of protection where courts recognise the prestige and reputation that is attributed to such brands, and the damage that can be done to that hard-won prestige by counterfeits or infringements. It is difficult to define what constitutes a ‘luxury’ brand over and above ‘normal’ branded products. The courts have considered cases in respect of a variety of IP rights which feature what are described as ‘luxury’ brands but there is no formal judicial definition. The courts have often considered the position on a case-by-case basis and have taken the view that they will know a luxury brand when they see

This year’s annual round-up reviews some of the most significant developments of 2017 and previews what is on the horizon for 2018. This includes the new copyright infringement and webmarking provisions of the Digital Economy Act 2017, reforms to the EU Trade Mark Regulation, the Supreme Court judgment on patent infringement in Actavis v Eli Lilly, the new threats provisions introduced by the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 and the launch of the Business and Property Courts—which includes an intellectual property list. Also included are updates on LexisNexis®’s content, including newsworthy developments from the past year and what is coming up in the next 12 months. Reviewing 2017 Copyright What happened? Some provisions of the Digital Economy Act 2017 (DEA 2017) relating to copyright infringement came into force on 1 October 2017 and in relation to the repeal of section 52 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) on 28 July 2016, the ‘sell period’ ended on 28 January 2017. The Court of Justice also handed down

Defined by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 as 31 December 2020 at 11.00 p.m.

Law360, London: Exhaustion of intellectual property rights is a principle that limits the IP owners' rights-enforcement powers once goods have been placed on the market by the owner or with owner consent.

This Practice Note provides a practical overview on how an IP lawyer or practitioner should complete a due diligence exercise on a software business. It guides professionals in identifying the key IP rights, namely copyright and patents, that may be owned by the business in relation to its software product offering. It further advises on examining the ownership of IP and exploring any issues related to third-party rights or licensing agreements. The note also highlights the importance of asking targeted questions to uncover the operational and legal use of IP in the business and the likely risks that can arise from an IP perspective specifically in relation to software companies. IP will be a key asset for many software businesses and make up a constituent part of its value to a potential buyer. When carrying out IP due diligence for the prospective purchase of a software business, practitioners will need to take the usual considerations when completing due diligence for any business. For guidance, see: • Practice Notes: IP issues to consider in asset purchase contracts