Update on IP rights in the UK during the Brexit transition period and beyond

The UK has left the EU, but for IP rights in the UK everything is very much the same for the duration of the transition period (currently ending at 23.00 on 31 December 2020) during which the UK continues to be treated as part of the EU from the point of view of EU legislation. At the end of transition, the UK Government will provide replacement rights for what were previously EU-wide rights that were current at the end of transition, but all is not as straightforward as that might sound. Read more

European Commission Announces Strategy for Data, Artificial Intelligence and Competition in the Digital Age

On 19 February 2020, the European Commission (the “Commission”) published three policy papers as part of its strategy to “shape Europe’s digital future”: a white paper on artificial intelligence (AI) (the “AI White Paper”), a communication on a European strategy for data (the “Data Strategy Communication”), and a communication on shaping Europe’s digital future (the … Read more

Artificial Intelligence in the Public Sector – a new regulatory field?

In our latest Public Law blog post, Andrew Lidbetter, Nusrat Zar, Jasveer Randhawa and Claire Hall discuss the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recently published report on artificial intelligence and its impact on public standards. They comment on the Committee’s recommendations for the governance and regulation of AI in the public sector, aimed at … Read more

OPEN INNOVATION & COLLABORATION: Triggering and managing innovation and collaboration & the IP, data and competition issues involved

Open Innovation: Forging innovation and collaboration In the first of a two-part series on open innovation, we explore how organisations can manage and benefit from the changing nature of innovation and collaboration. Open Innovation: IP, data and competition issues In part two, we look deeper into some specific issues that arise in the context of … Read more

EPO publishes reasons for rejecting AI as inventor on patent application

The European Patent Office (‘EPO’) has published its reasons for rejecting two patent applications on the grounds that an AI system known as DABUS, rather than a human, was named as the inventor. These patent applications appear to have been filed as a “test case” as part of the Artificial Inventor Project, which is seeking … Read more

Brexit & IP – status quo for the transition period; changes to come post-transition

From 23.00 on 31 January 2020, the UK will no longer a member state of the EU, although it will be treated as such for the duration of the transition period. From an IP point of view, the status quo will be maintained during the transition period (currently until the end of December 2020). Here we look at how the Withdrawal Agreement acts to preserve IP rights in the UK which were previously based on EU rights, and what changes are anticipated post-transition, as well as the aspirations of the Political Declaration. Read more

Herbert Smith Freehills’ Intellectual Property Podcasts – Episode 1: An Introduction to FRAND

The UK Supreme Court is soon expected to hand down its judgment in the appeals of Unwired Planet v Huawei and ZTE v Conversant concerning FRAND, which were heard together. In advance of the decision itself, this podcast provides a reminder of what FRAND is all about (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms required in the licensing of standard essential patents) and what issues are before the Court, as well as some background to the individual disputes. We will publish a further podcast once the Supreme Court has given its judgment. Read more

CJEU AG’s Opinion in Santen referral proposes to abandon Neurim

On 23 January 2020, AG Giovanni Pitruzzella provided his Opinion on the interpretation of Article 3(d) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products ("SPC Regulation"). In doing so, AG Pitruzzella makes two proposals to the CJEU. His favoured proposal would significantly curtail the availability of SPCs for second medical uses of known and previously authorised compounds, as it strictly interprets the meaning of "product" under Article 1(b) and precludes an interpretation of Neurim according to which a marketing authorisation (“MA”) for a “different and new application of an old active ingredient” could be considered as the first MA of a previously authorised active ingredient. His alternative proposal permit SPCs in a wider set of circumstances by interpreting Neurim as allowing an SPC to be granted if the new MA “covers a new therapeutic indication of said active ingredient or relates to a use of it in which this active ingredient exerts a new pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action of its own”. Read more