Intellectual Property Disputes
Intellectual Property assets are frequently seen as being amongst the most valuable assets of a business and as such the volume of disputes that have arisen in the field has grown substantially and the applicable area of law is frequently changing and often complex.
One of the biggest in the UK, our team is a highly respected provider of Intellectual Property Dispute Resolution services, acting for some of the largest companies in the world as well as for small and medium businesses. Many of our lawyers are ranked as leaders in the field and have experience of all relevant tribunals from the Intellectual Property Office through to the European Court of Justice.
Whilst our objective is often to resolve disputes with the minimum of fuss and costs, we also have a track record of acting in and winning the most complex IP disputes and creating substantial value for our clients. Many of the disputes that we work on have multi-jurisdictional aspects to them.
Our areas of expertise include:
- database rights
- trade marks
- trade secrets
- unfair competition
Major overhaul to disclosure coming: are you ready?22 November 2018
Documents win and lose cases. On 1 January 2019, fundamental changes to the disclosure process are due to come into force as part of a pilot scheme in the Business & Property Courts across England and Wales.
Andrew Wanambwa writes for FT Adviser: Unexplained Wealth Orders15 November 2018
In an article for FT Adviser, Andrew Wanambwa discusses the powerful new weapon in the armoury of enforcement agencies, unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs).
Out of court appointments of administrators: a return to reason13 November 2018
When appointing administrators out of court, there is requirement to specify the date and time the appointment is made. This is a development arising since April 2017 as a result of the Insolvency Rules 2016 coming into force. Given that appointments are generally effective at the point of filing, it has been unclear how (absent a crystal ball) practitioners should address the requirement when preparing the Notice of Appointment form. A recent High Court decision resolves the issue, confirming that a notice making reference to a future filing is acceptable.
Dispute Resolution Update - October 201801 November 2018
Welcome to our October 2018 Dispute Resolution Update which brings you news and our views on law and practice for dispute resolution. We’ve included articles on domestic disputes and international disputes, including summaries of recent cases. We have also included client guides on key aspects of dispute resolution.
Professional Representation before the EUIPO in a Post-Brexit World30 October 2018
Whilst the status of, and procedures affecting, EUTMs and other EU IP rights in a post-Brexit world are a concern for brand-owners, UK trade mark professionals face an additional headache in that there is a significant risk that their ability to represent clients before the EUIPO may shortly be lost. This is an important issue, as acting on matters before the EUIPO will account for over half of trade mark and design related revenue for many firms.
SFO v ENRC landmark privilege case: no appeal but the story continues…10 October 2018
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has confirmed that it will not appeal the Court of Appeal’s landmark ruling that documents created during an internal investigation by Eurasion Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC) were protected by litigation privilege and do not have to be disclosed to the SFO. However, the story does not end there because in a new twist, ENRC has applied for a judicial review of the SFO’s investigation into criminal allegations of corruption and financial wrongdoing by ENRC.
SFO V ENRC: Landmark privilege decision by Court of Appeal10 September 2018
The Court of Appeal has handed down its much anticipated decision in the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited (“ENRC”) appeal. In a judgment that will leave many lawyers breathing a heavy sigh of relief, the Court of Appeal overturned large parts of Mrs Justice Andrews’ first instance decision.