IP analysis: In a recent case concerning ostomy bags, the Patents Court considered (among other things) the interplay between AgrEvo obviousness and obviousness over the common general knowledge (CGK) alone. The patent was ultimately held invalid as it claimed various features which all fell within the CGK at the priority date. Those matters of CGK had not been implemented in the manner claimed in the patent because of commercial, not technical, reasons. Written by Alasdhair McDonald, associate (IP litigation) at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.

IP analysis: This case considered the novelty of a patent for 'mobile warning device for road traffic' and concluded that it was invalid for obviousness over the prior art. In the judgment, Judge Hacon provides some useful pointers on applying the Pozzoli test for the inventive step by analysing how a person skilled in the art would approach the existing corpus of prior art. The matter also tackles the question of obviousness of an invention within a heavily regulated sector. Ultimately Judge Hacon found that the patent at issue was invalid for lack of inventive step. Written by Philip Partington, director at Virtuoso Legal, and Ellie Wilson, trainee solicitor at Virtuoso Legal.

An occupancy standard is a rule or benchmark used to determine how many people may lawfully live in a residential property or a particular room, often by reference to floor area, number of rooms or age and sex of occupants. It is central to assessing overcrowding, housing conditions and allocation of social housing.In England and Wales, statutory overcrowding is principally governed by the “room standard” and “space standard” in Part 10 of the Housing Act 1985, supplemented by HMO licensing conditions and local authority policies. Scotland uses similar concepts under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, while Northern Ireland relies on the Housing (NI) Order 1981 and subsequent regulations. In Ireland, occupancy standards arise from the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations and local authority guidance.The expression “occupancy standard” is often used descriptively by local authorities, registered providers, landlords and tribunals, rather than as a defined statutory term. It is relevant to homelessness assessments, bedroom entitlement, housing benefit or housing assistance calculations, and enforcement action against overcrowding or sub‑standard rented accommodation across the UK and Ireland.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 22 November 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into four cartels for the supply of automotive occupant safety systems (car seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels) to Japanese car manufacturers (Toyota, Suzuki and Honda) in the EEA. The cartels involved coordinating prices or markets and information sharing. Latest development On 22 November 2017, the Commission issued its infringement decision after the five manufacturers settled with the Commission and acknowledged their involvement in the four cartels. Total fines totalling €34m were imposed. Total fines imposed on each manufacturer were: • Tokai Rika–€1,818,000 (as a result of being granted immunity, Tokai Rika was not fined for its involvement in one of the cartels)• Takata–€12,724,000 (as a result of being granted immunity, Takata was not fined for its involvement in three of the cartels)• Autoliv–€8,051,000• Toyoda Gosei–€11,262,000• Marutaka–€156,000 Parties • Tokai Rika, based in Japan• Takata, based in Japan• Autoliv, based in Sweden•

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 5 March 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into two cartels for the supply of automotive occupant safety systems (car seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels) to European car manufacturers (the Volkswagen Group and the BMW Group) in the EEA (AT.40481). The cartels involved coordinating market behaviour and information sharing. Latest development On 5 March 2019, the Commission issued its infringement decision after the three automotive equipment suppliers settled with the Commission and acknowledged their involvement in the two cartels. Fines totalling €368.277m were imposed. Total fines imposed on each equipment supplier were: • Takata—€0 (as a result of being granted immunity )• TRW–€188,891,000 (including a 50% reduction for leniency and a 10% reduction for settling)• Autoliv–€179,386,000 (including a 30% reduction for leniency and a 10% reduction for settling) Parties • Takata, a Japanese-based automotive parts company• TRW Automotive (TRW), based in the US, a supplier of automotive systems,

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court dismissed an application by liquidators to strike out a defence on the ground that the issues had already been determined at a previous hearing and so should not be re-tried. The court found that the key issue in this misfeasance claim was whether the company had traded from certain premises, whereas the previous decision (as to whether the company was liable for business rates) had been based on whether the company was in occupation of those premises. That was sufficient a distinction to demonstrate that the defence was not an attempt to retry a matter already determined by a court. Further, as the earlier judgement focused on a slightly different question, those proceedings could not have been anticipated to resolve this very substantial claim brought against the three respondents personally who were not the parties to the earlier action (that was the company) and only one of them was a privy of the company. Written by Mark Sands, partner at Opus Restructuring and Insolvency.

Cohabitants have more limited rights of occupation than spouses, civil partners and former spouses and civil partners. The relevant legislation is contained in Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996). See also Miller Smith v Miller Smith regarding an application for an occupation order under FLA 1996 and the interaction with an application under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Occupation orders—right to apply and orders that may be made An occupation order is an order under FLA 1996 conferring, declaring, restricting or regulating rights of occupation in the family home between parties who are in, or who have been in, certain categories of relationship. Occupation orders can be made under the different circumstances set out in FLA 1996, ss 33–38. The extent of the court’s powers depends on the eligibility of the applicant, their relationship with the respondent and the status of the dwelling-house. The factors that the court must consider differ in each category and it is important to note the subtle differences between each section. It

An occupation order is an order under the Family Law Act 1996 conferring, declaring, restricting or regulating rights of occupation in the family home between family members or those involved in a domestic relationship.

Occupation orders An occupation order is an order under the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996) conferring, declaring, restricting or regulating rights of occupation in the family home between parties who are in, or who have been in, certain categories of relationship. Essentially, an occupation order will be either a declaratory order or a regulatory order. Declaratory orders are those: • declaring existing occupation rights in the home • extending statutory occupation rights beyond the termination of the marriage on divorce or death • granting occupation rights in the home to the non-entitled applicants (an occupation rights order) Regulatory orders available are those: • requiring one party to leave the home • suspending occupation rights and/or prohibiting one party from entering or re-entering the home, or part of the home • requiring one party to allow the other to enter and/or remain in the home • regulating the occupation of the home by either or both of the parties • terminating occupation rights • excluding one party from a defined area in the vicinity of the home For

A compensatory claim (between spouses, civil partners or unmarried co-owners of a property) based on the allegation that one spouse, civil partner or joint tenant ought to pay a sum to the non-occupying party to reflect the value of his or her exclusive occupation of the family home.

The now disbanded UK regulator of occupational pension schemes for the period 1997 to 2005. Following a number of government inquiries in April 2005 which considered it was a disproportionate and risk-avoiding regulator, it was replaced by the Pensions Regulator.

This Practice Note is intended to deal with the legal principles which apply to claims of occupational cancer, but it homes in on the issue of causation and the criteria the court will adopt in determining whether the claimant has discharged the burden of proof. As with other personal injury cases, the claimant will be required to show that: • the defendant owed them a duty • the duty was breached • the breach caused damage Duty and breach In cases in which the claimant was employed by the defendant, argument on the existence of a duty ought to be rare. Claimants should seek to rely on breaches of relevant statutory duties and common law negligence. Typically, in cases of disease alleged to have been caused by dust in a factory setting the claimant will plead, depending on when the alleged exposure occurred, breach of section 47 of the Factories Act 1937 or section 63 of the Factories Act 1961. These provisions would avail a worker who established that they were exposed to substantial quantities of dust, although