Law360, London: A European court ruled on 13 May 2026 that the publisher behind the Asterix comic franchise can continue challenging a Polish arms maker's 'Obelix' trade mark, finding officials failed to consider that consumers would recognise the character outside of the series.

A common inflammatory condition of the respiratory system and lungs.

This Practice Note considers the key issues which arise when bringing a claim for a work-related asthma. Practical guidance is given on establishing whether a legal duty exists, the relevant statutory regime under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH Regs 2002), SI 2002/2677, causation issues and valuing these types of claims. This Practice Note considers how civil liability is imposed when a person, typically (though not exclusively) an employee, suffers asthma due to exposure to substances hazardous to health. In relation to injuries sustained before 1 October 2013, the statutory regime under the COSHH Regs 2002, SI 2002/2677, as amended, applied. For injuries sustained on or after 1 October 2013, section 69(3) of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013) applies so as to rewrite section 47 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and provide for no civil liability to arise for breach of the COSHH Regs 2002, SI 2002/2677. For further guidance on injuries sustained from 1 October 2013, see Practice Notes: Section 69 of the

Law360, London: Counsel for AstraZeneca convinced the Court of Appeal on 31 March 2025 to review a decision to let rival Glenmark release its generic version of a billion-dollar diabetes treatment under an agreement that the company can ship supplies of the drug already packed in trucks as long as it does not move ahead with retail sales in the meantime.

Law360, London: The Court of Appeal refused on 16 July 2025 to revive AstraZeneca's intellectual property protections for its billion-dollar diabetes drug, opening the way for generic competition to hit the market.

MLex: AstraZeneca has lost an argument that it should not have to pay £1.3m of legal costs for a series of interim injunctions which it won in the course of a landmark UK trial over the patent for a diabetes drug. The company claims that although it lost the overall case, the costs for the interim injunctions should be considered separately.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 24 July 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into vertical restrictions on online sales of consumer electronic products imposed by Asus (Case AT.40465). Latest developments On 24 July 2018, the Commission issued its infringement decision against Asus, imposing a fine of €63.522m (following an ‘informal settlement’), for imposing fixed or minimum resale prices on their online retailers in breach of Article 101 TFEU. Parties Asus is a Taiwan based company that manufactures computer and telephone hardware and electronic products. Background The Commission opened its investigation in February 2017 as a result of information obtained during its e-commerce sector inquiry. Market(s) Markets for the manufacture, distribution and retail of consumer electronic products, in particular computer and telephone hardware. Decision The Commission found that Asus engaged in fixed or minimum

Protection under the Refugee Convention: a 'claim for asylum' means a claim that it would be contrary to the UK's obligations under the Refugee Convention for the claimant to be removed from, or required to leave, the UK.

Asylum Welcome has published a report on the barriers faced by newly recognised refugees when starting their lives in the UK. The report states that the 28-day period in which people have to leave asylum accommodation after being granted refugee status causes stress, as finding a new place to live in such a short amount of time is difficult and has led in some cases to homelessness. The report findings include neglect by the Home Office to help the transition from asylum to mainstream accommodation, the impact of the housing crisis on refugees and challenges faced as a result of slow bureaucratic systems, for example lack of timely access to universal credit.

Claim for asylum A claim for asylum is a claim made by a person outside their country of nationality or habitual residence who claims that their enforced return would amount to refoulement, ie it would breach the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention 1951 by returning them to a place where they face a real risk of persecution. Asylum claims are often coextensive with claims for humanitarian protection. A claim for asylum includes a claim under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) where the applicant states that if removed to their country of origin, they will be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. See Practice Note: Dealing with a human rights challenge. Since 6 April 2015, the right to an in-country appeal against the refusal of an asylum claim falls under section 82(1)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (NIAA 2002) (as amended by

A technology that enables high-speed data services to be delivered over twisted pair copper cable, typically with a download speed in excess of 256 kbit/s (normally limited to 24 Mbit/s), but with a lower upload speed (hence asymmetric). Corresponds to ITU Recommendation (standard) ITU-T G.992.1.

Asymmetric encryption utilising key pairs is the most common type of encryption used for digital signature creation and verification. Software is used to generate a private key and a mathematically related public key. The private key is used by the signatory to encrypt the signature data. The public key, which is provided to the recipient of the electronic document, is then used to decrypt the data and verify the integrity of the document.