We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 10

Technology newsletter - September edition - Legal news - reported cases

  • Rouse Legal
  • -
  • China, European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • September 15 2014

Parody has been available to European Member States as an optional defence to copyright infringement for over a decade. A recent judgment from the

'Software as such', a further determination of the meaning in the UK

  • Barker Brettell LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 23 2013

As we move further into the information age, more and more technology is implemented using software. However, whether or not a specific software based

Preview 2013 (UK law)

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 15 2013

2013 will herald some significant changes to the UK legal arena, notably in the corporate area in relation to executive remuneration and narrative

Apple loses UK tablet design appeal

  • Mewburn Ellis LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 22 2012

The Court of Appeal for England and Wales have upheld the judgements of the High Court (see earlier article here) in relation to Apple’s Community Design registrations for tablet computers

Patentability of computer programs - High Court judgment gives rise to useful examples of a “technical effect”

  • EIP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 31 2012

A further decision in the so-called “smartphone wars” was issued by the High Court recently in relation to a patent dispute between HTC Europe Co Ltd (‘HTC’) and Apple Inc (‘Apple’

General counsel update

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • China, European Union, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Mongolia, Singapore, United Kingdom, USA
  • -
  • July 11 2012

This is the thirtieth in our series of general counsel updates which aim to summarise major developments in key areas

Technology annual review of 2011

  • CMS Cameron McKenna
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 29 2012

The year began as it meant to go on - with a high profile patent dispute in the mobile phone sector decided in the Court of Appeal

Appeal against exclusion from patentability of software to protect minors online allowed

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 12 2012

In relation to the application by Protecting Kids the World Over (PKTWO) 2011 EWHC 2720 (Pat), the High Court of England and Wales has allowed an appeal against a decision of a Hearing Officer that found that an alarm notification system for monitoring inappropriate electronic communications fell within the computer program exclusion

Ip snapshot - September 2011

  • CMS Cameron McKenna
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • September 30 2011

Mr Justice Floyd has granted an application for an expedited trial in favour of Teva, in circumstances in which, if Teva succeeds in invalidating Warner-Lambert’s patent, Teva may obtain an advantage over other generic manufacturers of the drug atorvastatin, marketed by Warner-Lambert as Lipitor, one of the world’s most successful drugs with an annual turnover exceeding £350 million

... but the UK IP office continues to plough the Macrossan furrow ...

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 12 2010

Despite the endorsement by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO approach to software patents, the UK IP Office has, in Marathon Oil Company et al, BL O17410, ignoring (not even mentioning) the Enlarged Board of Appeal decision, applied the "contribution" test laid down by the Court of Appeal in AerotelMacrossan, namely (1) properly construe the claim; (2) identify the actual contribution; (3) ask whether the actual contribution falls solely within the excluded subject matter and (4) check whether the contribution is technical in nature