Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 OCTOBER 2014

The IP Act: A False Economy?

Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Contributor
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP

Carpmaels & Ransford LLP

Carpmaels & Ransford LLP is a leader in the European IP market, having driven innovation in the...

View firm profile
Explore more from Carpmaels & Ransford LLP

The IP Bill recently received Royal Assent and became the IP Act 2014 ("the Act"). This article summarises the most significant changes to UK law relating to both patents and designs brought about by provisions in the Act that will start to come into force from 1st October 2014.

United KingdomIntellectual Property
Chloe Grover
Chloe Grover
Mark Abthorpe
Mark Abthorpe

The IP Bill recently received Royal Assent and became the IP Act 2014 ("the Act"). This article summarises the most significant changes to UK law relating to both patents and designs brought about by provisions in the Act that will start to come into force from 1st October 2014.

The Act is part of wider reforms intended to support innovation and add a headline-grabbing figure of up to £8 billion to the size of the UK economy by 2020. It is intended to make the UK IP system clearer, more cost-effective and more accessible, particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Patents

Unified Patent Court and Unitary Patent

The Act enables the UK to bring into effect the Unified Patent Court, the forum for enforcing the long-awaited Unitary Patent. The Unitary Patent system will offer UK businesses significant efficiency gains when protecting their inventions by allowing them to:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

AI, Deepfakes And Image Rights: Does English Law Protect Your Face, Voice And Likeness?

Generative AI has created a legal vacuum where synthetic images and deepfakes can be created and shared without consent, yet English law offers no standalone "image right" to protect individuals. With celebrities like Lisa Riley and over 80 performers demanding reform, the question is whether the UK's patchwork of intellectual property, data protection, and common law protections can adequately address this rapidly evolving threat to personal autonomy and reputation.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Mills & Reeve LLP
Mills & Reeve LLP
Article

The Sound Of Ownership: Why AI Voice Cloning Is Raising New IP Questions

As AI voice cloning technology becomes increasingly sophisticated and accessible, the Save Our Voices Now campaign calls for statutory rights allowing individuals to own and control their voice as intellectual property. This article examines whether existing UK law sufficiently protects one of our most personal and recognisable attributes, exploring copyright, trade marks, passing off, and the practical steps individuals and businesses can take.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Ashfords LLP
Ashfords LLP
Article

Samsung Ordered To Pay The Swatch Group US$11.6 Million In Damages For Trade Mark Infringement

The High Court has awarded the Swatch Group US$11.6 million in negotiation damages against Samsung for trade mark infringements involving watch face apps on the Galaxy App store. Rejecting both parties' extreme valuations of US$170 million and US$301, the court established important principles for assessing damages when brand owners don't license their marks and no comparable market royalties exist.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Mishcon de Reya LLP
Mishcon de Reya LLP
Article

High Court Clarifies The Limits Of Copyright Claims Against Online Marketplaces

The UK High Court has delivered a landmark ruling on online marketplace liability, dismissing Shein's copyright infringement claims against Temu and clarifying when platforms can be held responsible for third-party content. The judgment examines the boundaries of copyright ownership in complex supply chains and establishes important precedents for how marketplace operators should respond to infringement allegations.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Podcast

Carpmaels In Conversation: Ep. 42 – Feeding The Machine: Copyright And AI Training (Podcast)

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.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Article

Advocate General in C 456/24 Halozyme: The MA has the final say on what constitutes an “active ingredient”

Following widespread litigation over Halozyme's SPC families for Herceptin Hylecta and MabThera, Europe's highest court received a critical referral addressing whether recombinant human hyaluronidase can be considered an "active ingredient" despite its classification as an excipient in marketing authorisation documents. Advocate General Emiliou has now published a significant legal opinion proposing that substances expressly designated as excipients cannot be regarded as active ingredients for SPC purposes.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Article

[UPCKat] When Is Imminent Infringement More Likely Than Not? Decision Of The UPC Court Of Appeal In Merz v Viatris

The UPC Court of Appeal recently overturned a first instance decision in the first case of SPC enforcement at the UPC, granting Merz a preliminary injunction against Viatris. The decision clarifies when a patentee must act to avoid undue delay in seeking provisional measures, emphasizing that applicants need sufficient certainty of imminent infringement before filing. The Court conducted a detailed analysis of French regulatory procedures and market practices to determine whether Merz had acted with reasona
FranceIntellectual Property
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Article

Innovation In FemTech: Apps And Digital Innovations

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.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP