Social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram have fundamentally transformed product marketing and consumer access, but this digital revolution has brought significant intellectual property challenges. How can brand owners protect their trademarks and reputation when counterfeits proliferate through influencer marketing, "dupe" culture blurs the line between legitimate competition and infringement, and upcycled products create both opportunities and risks?

In the latest episode of Carpmaels in Conversation, Lara Elder and Harry Shaw discuss one of the most closely watched cases in intellectual property law: Getty Images v Stability AI. Using the case as a starting point, they examine a central question for modern copyright law: whether AI models trained on datasets that include copyright works should give rise to liability for infringement.

The UK Supreme Court's decision in Emotional Perception AI has introduced significant changes to software and AI patent eligibility, but how is this landmark ruling being applied in practice?

On 29th April 2014, the European Commission released two significant decisions concerning standard essential patents ("SEPs") in respect of Motorola Mobility ("Motorola") and Samsung.

Progress towards an EU-wide patent and court has accelerated in recent months but doubts remain about various aspects of the new system and whether or not it represents a positive change for industry.

The Unified Patent Court is witnessing a significant shift toward English as the primary language of proceedings, with a recent Milan Local Division decision exemplifying this trend.

Advocate General issues his opinion in Huawei v ZTE in its referral to the Court of Justice

The women's health technology sector has evolved from simple digital diaries into sophisticated tracking systems that capture menstrual cycles, fertility patterns, and menopause symptoms at unprecedented scale. As these innovations transition from niche tools to established digital health fixtures, securing comprehensive intellectual property protection becomes essential for transforming technological breakthroughs into defensible commercial assets.

The procedural and legal complexities which can result from differing decisions handed down by the EPO and UK courts was illustrated recently in a judgment handed down by the UK Patents Court.

UK courts have the power to dispose of all or part of a case without a trial if there is no real prospect of success.

The High Court has recently handed down its judgment relating to Dualit’s act of supplying disposable ground coffee capsules compatible with Nestec’s Nespresso® machines, following Nestec’s assertion of a patent protecting the extraction system in certain Nespresso machines (EP 2 103 236).

The UK High Court has again shown its willingness to grant preliminary injunctions in its decision BASF v Sipcam (UK) Limited. (see our previous article "Preliminary injunctions available in the UK despite first instance invalidity finding").

The High Court has decided, in a single judgment, that Genentech’s patents relating to a dosage regimen for Herceptin and a purified composition of non-acidic variants of Herceptin are invalid.

One question we are now hearing regularly is whether the use of AI to generate inventions, particularly in biotech and pharma, risks undermining inventive step.

As of 1st November 2014, the EPO is changing the way it searches PCT applications entering the European regional phase which are considered to relate to more than one invention.

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO)’s opinions service has been given more substance, and the Office has been given the power to revoke patents in certain situations.

The UK’s High Court has decided that Richter Gedeon’s patent for a single dose of the emergency contraceptive levonorgestrel is invalid in view of a report published a few months before the priority date revealing the preliminary results from an incomplete study of the drug.

Seemingly with no end in sight, the war for world smartphone domination rages on! Apple previously scored a victory against Samsung in the UK in March 2013.

The caps that are in place for the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), formerly known as the Patents County Court (PCC), provide claimants and defendants alike with certainty with regard to damages/account of profits and orders in relation to costs.

In a pro-patentee judgment, the UK High Court suggests that SPCs can be based on most types of claim provided that the product which is the subject of the SPC falls within the scope of the claim.