WIPO Report on IP Dispute Resolution Systems Published

The report on judicial structure and procedures for IP disputes, which I co-authored with Duncan Matthews for the World Intellectual Property Organization – WIPO, has just been published. Researching so many different jurisdictions with varying legal traditions was a fascinating experience. I particularly enjoyed speaking with the leading judicial minds during the interviews we conducted for the study. Hopefully, this report will make a useful contribution to the debate surrounding specialized IP judiciary in the global context. Report is available here:  https://lnkd.in/edvmZYDH #IPLoverpool

Hollingsworth LLP and Atlantic Legal Foundation submitted an amicus brief urging the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to affirm the lower court’s sound exercise of its gatekeeping authority and correct the Second Circuit panel’s misapplication of FRE 702 as clarified by the 2023 amendments and Advisory Committee Notes. The Second Circuit had reversed the district court, finding that the district court exceeded its discretion when it excluded plaintiffs’ causation expert testimony. The brief argues that the Second Circuit panel weakened the rigorous gatekeeping standards by penalizing the district court’s proper analysis under Rule 702 and citing to out-of-court scientific inquiry as a proxy for in-court reliability. Read the brief here: https://lnkd.in/eMc9n744

𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐒𝐑𝐀 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐬 The recent High Court decision in 𝘊𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘙𝘶𝘤𝘬 & 𝘖𝘳𝘴 𝘷 𝘚𝘙𝘈 𝘓𝘵𝘥, ruling that the Solicitors Regulation Authority does not have statutory power to compel a law firm to disclose documents covered by professional privilege, has serious implications across the regulatory and disciplinary community. Two of Outer Temple Chambers' experts in this field, James Counsell KC and Ed Morgan KC were asked for their views on this landmark decision; https://lnkd.in/ewrq_T-A

The choice of the Place of Arbitration can influence the procedural framework, court intervention, and ultimately how an international dispute is resolved. But here’s the real question: How much importance should businesses give to the place of arbitration when drafting their contracts? Read our full article to explore why this decision can have far-reaching consequences. Click Here:- https://lnkd.in/gC7CkyeC Follow Law Senate for more insights and updates on arbitration and dispute resolution. #internationalarbitration #arbitrationlawyer #commercialarbitration #disputeresolution #arbitrationlawfirm

TAS has filed its intervener factum in Law Society of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), a case at the B.C. Court of Appeal concerning the constitutionality of legislation that overhauls the regulation of the legal profession. In its intervention, TAS proposes an analytical framework for assessing whether legislation infringes on the unwritten constitutional principle of the independence of the bar. Thank you to our counsel team for representing TAS in this important appeal – Ken McEwan, Emily Kirkpatrick, Merran Hergert, and Caleigh McMillan of McEwan Partners in Vancouver. Read TAS’s intervener factum here: https://buff.ly/OpwJ4Hc

Our partner Katie Burghardt Kramer will be speaking at the American Bar Association International Law Section's "Keeping it Classy: Transatlantic Trends and the Future of Collective Redress" CLE program during the 2026 ILS Fall Conference, on September 24 in London. The program will explore emerging developments in class actions and collective redress across jurisdictions, including evolving case law, procedural and funding challenges, settlement mechanisms, and strategic considerations for claimants and defendants. Katie, also serving as the program co-chair, will be joined by moderator Emily Christiansen of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and fellow speakers Matthew Reach of Fox Williams and Paul Sluijter of Houthoff for the discussion.

U.S. District Judge Mia Roberts Perez of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania determined that while the plaintiff, a child, agreed to the terms of use on multiple occasions, the child later disaffirmed the terms of use and the defendant failed to present evidence that would invalidate the disaffirmance. Thus, the court determined the plaintiff "cannot be bound by the contract." Patrick Huyett of Anapol Weiss, in Philadelphia, told reporter Riley Brennan that courts are divided over whether disaffirmance reaches a contract’s delegation clause, which is where the arbitration issue comes into play. Huyett said arbitration agreements often include delegation provisions requiring an arbitrator, rather than a court, to decide challenges to the agreement's enforceability. 🔗 https://lnkd.in/gnYRBFWB

This book outlines the foundations of a new procedural model that not only enables judicial intervention in public policy but also addresses complex legal issues and systemic violations of private rights. Through numerous concrete examples and in-depth analysis of key legal institutions that require rethinking for the effective handling of structural litigation and complex cases, the book presents both a comprehensive account of Brazilian experience and a practical guide for building a truly effective structural process.

This is the legal point that stood out for me. Whatever one’s view may be on the broader Home Affairs/asylum debate, the rule-of-law principle remains important: administrative action must remain consistent with a Constitutional Court judgment. A directive can regulate implementation, but it cannot override the authority of the Court. In law, process matters. Authority matters. And implementation must follow the judgment, not sidestep it.

A directive cannot undo a Constitutional Court judgment. The recent developments around Home Affairs and asylum applications raise an important rule-of-law point. When the Constitutional Court has pronounced on a legal issue, administrative action must be implemented in a way that remains consistent with that judgment. A directive may regulate the process. It may clarify how applications are handled. It may address practical implementation. But it cannot override the authority of a Constitutional Court decision. The public debate may be complex, but the legal principle is clear: implementation must follow the law, not sidestep it. JCDB Attorneys Practical legal solutions for businesses and individuals.