CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the General Court in Cases T- 227/21, T- 23/22 and T- 755/21 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 06/09/2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary . Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the acquisition by GRAIL. Inc. of Illumina, Inc. (M.10188). The transaction involves a vertical overlap in the market for the development and supply of next generation sequencing (NGS) based cancer detection tests. Latest developments On 6 September 2024, the Commission issued a statement withdrawing its decision in M.10188 (as well as its decisions in M.10493, M.10483, M.10938 and M.10939) following the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C- 611/22. Parties • Illumina, Inc. (Illumina): Illumina is a global genomics company that is incorporated and headquartered in the US, which principally develops, manufactures and commercialises next generation sequencing (NGS) systems for genetic and genomic analysis.• GRAIL, Inc. (GRAIL): GRAIL is a healthcare company that is incorporated and headquartered in the US, which is focused on developing technologies

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision; it is no longer maintained. NOTE—appeals lodged before the General Court in Cases T- 755/21, T- 23/22, T- 5/23 and T- 591/23 See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation into whether (amongst other things) Illumina’s decision to complete its acquisition of GRAIL, whilst the Commission's in-depth investigation into the proposed transaction was still ongoing, constituted a breach of the standstill obligation under Article 7 EUMR (M.10493) Latest development On 6 September 2024, the Commission issued a statement withdrawing its decisions in M.10493, M.10483, M.10938 and M.10939 following the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C- 611/22. Parties • Illumina, Inc. (Illumina): Illumina is a global genomics company that is incorporated and headquartered in the US, which principally develops, manufactures and commercialises next generation sequencing (NGS) systems for genetic and genomic analysis.• GRAIL, Inc. (GRAIL): GRAIL is a healthcare company that is incorporated and headquartered in the US,

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note illustrates the CPR 36 provisions affecting the acceptance and disclosure of Part 36 offers made in the context of split trial cases, resulting from the re-writing of CPR 36 in April 2015. It forms part of a series of Practice Notes that were produced for the joint LexisNexis and St Philips Commercial series of seminars on the revisions to CPR 36 that took place in Leeds, Birmingham and London in January 2015. To access all the materials and the recorded version of the London Part 36 event please visit our LexisNexis Dispute Resolution blog and sign-up. For other Practice Notes in this series on the revised CPR 36, please see our related content links on the right hand side. The new split trial provisions The relationship between Part 36 and split trials has not previously been dealt with in the rules. Here we consider how the new CPR 36 provisions

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note illustrates the transitional provisions for CPR 36 following the re-writing of CPR 36 April 2015. It forms part of a series of Practice Notes that were produced for the joint LexisNexis and St Philips Commercial series of seminars on the revisions to Part 36 that took place in Leeds, Birmingham and London in January 2015. To access all the materials and the recorded version of the April 2015 London Part 36 event please visit our LexisNexis Dispute Resolution blog and sign-up. For other Practice Notes in this series on the revised CPR 36, please see our related content links on the right-hand side. What is happening and when? The new CPR 36 came into force in its entirety on 6 April 2015 and applies to all Part 36 offers made on/after 6 April 2015. However, a number of the new provisions will apply (with effect from 6 April

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note illustrates the CPR 36 provisions for varying Part 36 offers resulting from the re-writing of CPR 36 in April 2015. It forms part of a series of Practice Notes that were produced for the joint LexisNexis and St Philips Commercial series of seminars on the revisions to Part 36 that took place in Leeds, Birmingham and London in January 2015. To access all the materials and the recorded version of the April 2015 London Part 36 event please visit our LexisNexis Dispute Resolution blog and sign-up. For other Practice Notes in this series on the revised CPR 36, please see our related content links on the right hand side. What happens when a Part 36 offer is varied to make it more advantageous to the offeree? CPR 36.9(5) provides that if you vary a Part 36 offer so as to make it more favourable to the offeree, this is treated as being

An illustrative mark-up highlighting the amendments made to the Standard Commercial Property Conditions (Third Edition—2018 Revision) (SCPC) in Precedent: Contract for sale—freehold, vacant possession is available from the following link: The symbols in the

An illustrative mark—up highlighting the amendments that we make to the Standard Commercial Property Conditions (Third Edition—2018 Revision) (SCPCs) in Precedent: Contract for sale—freehold vacant possession conditional on planning incorporating the Standard Commercial Property Conditions (Third Edition) is available

An illustrative mark-up highlighting the amendments made to the Standard Commercial Property Conditions (Third Edition—2018 Revision) (SCPC) in Precedent: Contract for sale—freehold subject to leases is available from the following link: The symbols in the

Private Client analysis: What does the ruling in Ilott v Mitson mean for charities? Helena Wilkinson, partner and head of charities and not for profit at Price Bailey Chartered Accountants, and Sarah Eden, solicitor in the dispute resolution team at Stone King, consider the risk this judgment poses to charities who rely on legacies to form a significant part of their income.

An electronic image of a printed page, that is, a picture of a document.

IP & IT analysis: With the growth of CGI and digital technologies, what can celebrities do to protect their image rights after their death? The Image Lawyer, Gary Assim, a partner in Shoosmiths national retail and intellectual property and creative industry groups, considers the protection of image rights following reports that the late actor Robin Williams has restricted the use of his image for the next 25 years.

IP & IT analysis: Footballing legend, Pelé is reportedly suing Samsung in response to an advertisement which allegedly contained an unauthorised use of his ‘likeness’. Jeremy Blum, partner, and Tim Heaps, associate at Bristows, examine the legal issues at hand.