Bristows' Podcast: Recent Episodes
Bristows
Never content to do the bare minimum, we've always been at the forefront of change. You could say we are and always have been a bit different from other law firms. Our legal expertise joined up with our science and technology backgrounds means we understand your business and can talk the same language. And that's essentially what we cover in this podcast. A truly independent approach to litigation, transactions and advice throughout the world.
In the very first episode of our Spotlight on Women's Health and Innovation podcast, data protection associates Kiran Sidhu and Subha Kumar discuss how to navigate key GDPR challenges in the women’s health space. They offer practical advice when launching a new product or service in this sector and give top-tips on how to stay compliant and avoid regulatory traps.
In the third and final episode of our series exploring Corporate Law and AI, our experts, Partner Nick Cross and Associate Oliver Alsop, delve into a crucial piece of legislation for anyone considering investing in UK companies in the AI sector: the National Security Investment Act 2021 (NSIA).
In this final episode of our three-part mini series on the EU AI Act and its implications for manufacturers of medical devices, Marc Dautlich and Alex Denoon look in detail at Annex V of the Act.
Annex V of the EU AI Act requires, amongst other things, that a manufacturer provide the Notified Body making a conformity assessment with a statement that the high risk AI system that is being assessed and which forms part of the medical device, and which involves the processing of personal data (as many medical devices will), "complies with the GDPR".
What exactly does a statement like that look like? And how are the Notified Bodies responsible for the conformity assessment going to evaluate the inevitable qualifications and caveats to any such statement that applicants are likely to make?
As rumours swirl of a delay to the date of application of the AI Act, here is part 2 of specialists Marc Dautlich and Alex Denoon's podcast.
In this episode, they delve further into Marc’s territory – the principles based GDPR - and note an uncomfortable practical constraint hidden away in Annex V of the EU AI Act.
This issue wasn’t addressed in Team-NB’s Position Paper, but is likely to be a significant challenge.
Send us a text
Team-NB, representing the majority of Notified Bodies for EU MDR and IVDR medical devices, has issued a stark warning: the implementation of the EU AI Act carries a significant risk of major disruption to the medical device software sector.
Their recently published Position Paper doesn't hold back, highlighting critical shortcomings in the implementation framework and emphasising the dwindling time left to address them. Team-NB is urgently calling for swift action to prevent widespread issues.
To unpack this crucial situation, our specialists Marc Dautlich and Alex Denoon offer their expert analysis of the Team-NB findings – and an additional key consideration – from the vantage points of data protection and product regulatory in the three part series.
In the second episode of our series exploring Corporate Law and AI, our experts, Partner Iain Redford (Corporate & Tax) and Partner Vik Khurana (Commercial Technology), highlight some of the key risks which are likely to arise in doing deals with the next generation of AI companies with suggestions about ways to mitigate those risks.
Find all the episodes as we release them here, and don’t forget to subscribe!
Note: All information was correct at the time of recording. (15.04.25)
In the first episode of our series exploring Corporate Law and AI, our experts, Partner Vik Khurana (Commercial Technology) and Of Counsel Richard Swaine (Corporate & Tax), focused on the current state of AI transactional work and recognising and protecting value.
Find all the episodes as we release them here, and don’t forget to subscribe!
Note: All information was correct at the time of recording. (20.03.25)
Following the CJEU’s landmark decision in the BSH v Electrolux case (C-339/22), patent litigators Andrew Bowler and Gregory Bacon discuss the three questions referred by the Swedish Court of Appeal to the European court.
Explore our more detailed analysis here
Note: All information was correct at the time of recording.
It's hard to believe that six months have passed since we released the 11th edition of our Biotech Review of the Year publication.
Our editors, Greg Bacon, Xisca Borrás, and Will Hewitt, thought now would be a great time to catch up and discuss any developments since the launch.
You can also find written updates on the following articles here:
- Integrating generative AI into the life science ecosystem – five tips for success
- Revision of the EU pharmaceutical law regime – what does it mean for biotech companies?
- The first seven months of the Unified Patent Court
- The application of G2/21 by the Court of Appeal
- Strategic considerations for partnering with CDMOs for cell and gene therapies
- Biotech settlement agreements – a competition law checklist
In this episode our experts Iain Redford (corporate), Miranda Cass (tax) and Gareth Wadley (employment and global mobility) set out the key considerations and potential pitfalls involved in Acquihire deals - an increasing trend we see from across the Atlantic as strategic buyers and institutions look to acquire the best talent and technology to drive innovation.
Find all the episodes as we release them here, and don’t forget to subscribe!
Note: All information was correct at the time of recording.
In this episode of Tech M&A, our experts, Jamie Drucker and Richard Swaine look at the regulatory challenges facing Adtech companies and consider how commercial and legal diligence - and approach to transaction risk - in Adtech M&A may have to refocus in the light of those challenges.
Find all the episodes as we release them here, and don’t forget to subscribe!
Note: All information was correct at the time of recording.
In this episode of Tech M&A, our experts, Sophie Rees and Jamie Hatzel discuss some of the recent trends affecting medtech M&A, in particular recent regulatory changes which are affecting the evolution of the sector. They also discuss some of the M&A pitfalls which have arisen out of those trends – and how focussed due diligence can help investors avoid them.
Find all the episodes as we release them here, and don’t forget to subscribe!
Note: All information was correct at the time of recording.
Jamie Hatzel and Vivien Zhu delve into some of the finer details of the Statutory Disclosure Regime proposals, including the scope of the proposed regime and the role that voluntary disclosure schemes could continue to play once the regime comes into force. Vivien also talks through how the Statutory Disclosure Regime should prompt some companies to consider whether their data protection arrangements are sufficient.
The Statutory Disclosure Regime consultation closes on 16 October 2023. To learn more and submit a response, see the link here.
Note: All information was correct at the time of recording.
Chris Bates and Jamie Hatzel round out this three-part series with a discussion of the likely impact of the Statutory Disclosure Regime proposals on the medtech sector, and how medtech will have to play catch-up to remain compliant once the Statutory Disclosure Regime comes into force.
The Statutory Disclosure Regime consultation closes on 16 October 2023. To learn more and submit a response, see the link here.
Note: All information was correct at the time of recording.
Chris Bates and Vivien Zhu introduce the UK government’s consultation on a statutory regime for disclosure of transfers of value to the healthcare sector by the life sciences industry. Chris talks about the historical context of voluntary schemes for disclosures of transfers of value, while Vivien introduces the data protection implications of such disclosures.
The Statutory Disclosure Regime consultation closes on 16 October 2023. To learn more and submit a response, see the link here.
Note: All information was correct at the time of recording.
In this episode, experts Chris Devlin and Julia Cockroft explore the impact the National Security and Investment Act 2021 has had on transactions involving companies active in AI. The conversation then moves onto the valuable R&D tax reliefs that might be available to businesses harnessing the power of AI and how those reliefs should be taken into account as part of deal negotiations.
Find all the episodes as we release them here, and don’t forget to subscribe!
Note: All information was correct at the time of recording.
In this episode, Luke Maunder discusses the long-awaited FRAND judgment of Mr Justice Mellor with special guest star Dr Myles Jelf. Luke and Myles delve into the decision and set out the key information you need to know.
In this quick update, senior associates and IP specialists Luke Maunder and Naomi Hazenberg discuss the recent decision in Kigen v Thales, which considers the jurisdiction of the court for a claim that included FRAND declarations that were free-standing and/or tied to declarations of invalidity and non-essentiality.
Senior associates and IP specialists Luke Maunder and Naomi Hazenberg discuss the development of the English FRAND injunction and the timing of when an undertaking to enter a FRAND licence is required.
Senior associates and IP specialists Luke Maunder and Naomi Hazenberg go back to the future to look at FRAND methodologies before the British Courts. They begin by looking at what was done in the seminal Unwired Planet case, before moving on to the detail of the unresolved issues including those that are up for consideration in the cases of InterDigital v Lenovo and Optis v Apple. For the true economics enthusiast, they also finish off with what other, as yet untested, methodologies might be lurking out there.
Note: All information was correct at the time of recording.
Senior associates and IP specialists, Luke Maunder and Naomi Hazenberg, look at how the British Courts have treated patent pools, before delving into some of the issues they present in litigation. They also cover suggestions that the principle of pool licensing could apply on the other side of the fence, looking at licensing negotiation groups and approaches that seek to achieve a similar objective.
Note: All information was correct at the time of recording.
"If only we could have a little more transparency" is a refrain heard by every licensor, but commercial sensitivities and confidentiality obligations/concerns abound in the FRAND space.
Senior associates and IP specialists, Luke Maunder and Naomi Hazenberg, look at how the British Courts have sought to balance the right to information on comparable licences (and associated information) with the need to protect confidentiality and prevent parties from gaining an unfair competitive advantage for other licensing negotiations.
Note: All information was correct at the time of recording.
Senior associates and IP specialists Luke Maunder and Naomi Hazenberg briefly recap the history of jurisdiction challenges in the British Courts, including the relevant aspects of the decision by the UK Supreme Court in Conversant / Unwired Planet. They then look in detail at the latest decision of the Court of Appeal in Nokia v Oppo, when Oppo attempted to have the FRAND aspects stayed in favour of global determination in an alternative forum, the People's Republic of China.
Note: All information was correct at the time of recording.
Associates Rob Powell and Jamie Witton explore the phenomenon of virtual voice assistance (VVA). They discuss the uses of this type of software and some of the positives, as well as sharing a few horror stories along the way which highlight some of the data security concerns to think about.
What potential data breach scenarios could data subjects face?
As technology continues to expand, will regulations be able to keep up?
In this episode, they review:
- What is meant by VVA's?
- Who are the main players in the market?
- What issues can arise in relation to data protection?
- What data breach concerns may there be? i.e Phishing attempts or potential for devices to be hacked
- What regulatory guidance is there on VVA's?
Read the DP Top 10 here.
Litigation experts Toby Headdon and Victoria Baron discuss the level of compensation assigned for low value data breaches and privacy related claims as they're rising across all different sectors.
What is the type of damages that can be recovered for breaches of data protection law?
What challenges will all those involved face in these types of claims?
In this episode they’ll look at a few key examples:
- Phone hacking and the Gulati vs MGN decision
- TLT vs Home Office where claimants were awarded financial sums for distress
- The Supreme Court Lloyd vs Google case – Whether damages can be awarded purely for loss of control of personal data?
Read the DP Top 10 here.
A recent trade mark dispute, heard before the IPEC, covering the law on bad faith and threats in Fox Group International Ltd and Teleta Pharma Limited was handed down on 23 June 2021.
The parties deal in aesthetic and cosmetic products and the case is a cautionary tale for brands, to always check that suspect goods are, in fact, infringing their marks.
Abigail Wise discusses the background and conclusions of the infringement claim made by Fox, and the counterclaim and defence made by Teleta in respect of bad faith and unjustified threats.
In this final episode of our Bristows’ Designs and Copyright Review of the Year podcast series, Toby Headdon and Jake Palmer discuss the impact of Brexit on some core intellectual property rights.
How has Brexit impacted UK copyright law, database rights and trade marks? “The UK has sought to plug any gaps in trade mark protection arising as a result of our departure from the EU.”
Abigail Wise and Stephanie Taylor review the repercussions of Brexit within the IP world in this final episode from our Review of UK and European Trade Mark Cases podcast series.
What are the main changes to trade marks and what should brand owners be thinking about to make sure they are fully protected in the EU and the UK? Tune in to hear their recommendations.
In this episode of the Review of UK and European Trade Mark Cases podcast, Abigail Wise and Stephanie Taylor discuss Parallel Imports and Platform Liability as decided by the CJEU in Coty v Amazon.
Coty alleged that two Amazon group companies were committing trade mark infringement.
In this episode of our Bristows’ Designs and Copyright Review of the Year podcast series, Lucie Fortune and Milly Wickson explore the decision which was handed down in November 2020 in the UK Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, or IPEC, concerning some ‘body-enhancing’ jeans – Freddy SPA v HUGZ Clothing.
They pay particular focus to the allegations of UK unregistered design right infringement and on passing off.
In this episode of the Review of UK and European Trade Mark Cases podcast, Abigail Wise and Stephanie Taylor review the High Court’s decision in relation to Photobox’s use of FREEPRINTS in respect of a free printing app.
They cover what the High Court considers when assessing whether trade mark infringement had occurred and also provide their key take away from the case.
Continuing on with our Bristows’ Designs and Copyright Review of the Year podcast series, Toby Headdon and Charlie Hawes focus this episode on the decision of the Court of Appeal in The Racing Partnership v Sports Information Services.
This is a particularly interesting case as it concerns commercially valuable data - in this instance sports betting data.
In this follow-up episode of our podcast series on patent settlement agreements and competition law, Sophie Lawrance and Helena Connors will cover the key takeaways from the Court of Justice’s long-awaited judgment in Lundbeck.
Missed an episode? Find our latest podcasts and videos here. For more information on the work we do, see our patent litigation and competition litigation practice area pages.
In this episode of the Review of UK and European Trade Mark Cases podcast, Abigail Wise and Stephanie Taylor review Monster Energy’s recent opposition to Robot Energy Limited’s application for the mark HYBRID in a stylised form, covering class 32.
In this episode of Bristows’ Designs and Copyright Review of the Year podcast, Andy Butcher and Sukanya Majumdar discuss the Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgment of September 2020 in the Recorded Artists Actors Performers Ltd case.
Tim Heaps and Sara Sefton discuss the landmark CJEU decision in Brompton Bicycle handed down in June 2020. It’s a case in which the courts give consideration to whether copyright applies to technical designs. Over the course of this podcast, they explore how this is very much a judgment that focuses primarily on the requirement of originality for copyright subsistence.
Abigail Wise and Stephanie Taylor provide the latest guidance on jurisdiction and without notice applications in their latest podcast. In this episode, they focus on the recent High Court judgment of easyGroup Limited v Easyfly S.A.
The first podcast in a series linked to our annual review of design & copyright cases for 2020. Sean Ibbetson and Marc Linsner discuss the High Court decision in Response Clothing v Edinburgh Woollen Mill, as well as the implications of the CJEU decision in Cofemel.
Abigail Wise and Stephanie Taylor lead this discussion on the General Court’s decision which discussed an application to invalidate Louis Vuitton’s chequerboard trade mark.
Pat Treacy and Erik Müürsepp round up our podcast series on patent settlement agreements and competition law with a look at some practical considerations for those involved in the negotiation and drafting of patent settlement agreements.
Starting with common mistakes which may inadvertently lead to issues from a competition law perspective, Pat and Erik discuss some of the issues that frequently arise in the course of settlement negotiations and, drawing on their experience, how best to address these in a commercially acceptable and low risk manner.
This podcast is accompanied by an animation illustrating the topics covered which you can watch here on our Bristows Law Firm YouTube channel.
For more information on the work we do, see our commercial & IP transactions and competition litigation practice area pages.
In episode six of our podcast series on patent settlement agreements and competition law, Sophie Lawrance and Olivia Henry discuss the pro-competitive effects that may be associated with patent settlement agreements, the extent to which they are relevant to the assessment of whether Article 101(1) has been infringed ‘by object’ and why this matters.
Listen to our previous podcast: Restrictions of competition ‘by object’ – what does this mean and why does it matter?
For more information on the work we do, see our patent litigation and competition litigation practice area pages.
In short: quite a few! Sophie Lawrance, Katie Cambrook and Helena Connors lead this penultimate episode in our podcast series on the competition law issues arising in relation to patent settlement agreements. In this episode, they look ahead and discuss some of the outstanding points which may arise in the context of patent settlement agreements but which have not yet arisen in any of the cases to have come before the European courts. Is it acceptable, from a competition law perspective, for parties to a patent settlement agreement to enter into a licence agreement at the same time? What if that licence grants early or partial entry to alternative markets? Does the type of patent at issue affect the analysis?
For more information on the work we do, see our patent litigation and competition litigation practice area pages.
Pat Treacy presents episode five in our podcast series regarding the competition law issues associated with patent settlement agreements.
In this episode, Pat considers the role played by, inter alia, no-challenge clauses in patent settlement agreements and, in anticipation of the Court of Justice decision in Lundbeck later this month, the circumstances in which they may give rise to competition law concerns.
For more information on the work we do, see our patent litigation and competition litigation practice area pages.
In the fourth episode of our podcast series on patent settlement agreements and competition law, Edwin Bond introduces the concept of restrictions of competition ‘by object’ under Art 101 TFEU.
During this podcast, Edwin explores the distinction between ‘by object’ and ‘by effect’ restrictions; the diagram below helps illustrate a few examples of types of conduct that typically – although not always – fall into each box.
As shown in diagram below, the distinction between object and effect restrictions can be shown pictorially in the form of two boxes. We’ve also included a few examples of types of conduct that typically – although not always – fall into each box.
Edwin discusses how these distinctions apply in the context of assessments of patent settlement agreements, and explains the relevance of this classification in light of recent case law of the CJEU.
For more information on the work we do, see our patent litigation and competition litigation practice area pages.
In the third episode of our podcast series, Sophie Lawrance and Katie Cambrook provide some key insights into the identification of the “relevant market” and the assessment of whether the parties to a patent settlement are competitors. As well as setting out the basics, they explore some of the nuances – touching on the particular difficulties associated with identifying the relevant market in a pharmaceutical setting and what the Court of Justice has (and has not) said about different types of patents and regulatory rights.
To help illustrate some of the complexities associated with the definition of the relevant market in a pharmaceutical setting, this podcast is illustrated by a simple animation which you can find on our Bristows Law Firm YouTube channel.
For more information on the work we do, see our patent litigation and competition litigation practice area pages.
Value transfers are a common feature of patent settlement agreements. For example, under a patent settlement agreement, the alleged infringer (often a generic company) may agree to pay damages and/or future royalties to the patentee (if the settlement also results in a licence). Other forms of payment, such as a contribution to the litigation costs of either party, may be made to enable a settlement to be reached. In the context of pay-for-delay agreements, the competition authorities are particularly interested in what are sometimes known as ‘reverse payments’ where value is transferred from the patentee to the alleged infringer.
In the second episode of our podcast series discussing patent settlement agreements and competition law, Pat Treacy and Olivia Henry consider the impact of the Court of Justice’s broad interpretation of what might constitute a value transfer. With an eye on the recent case law emerging from the Court of Justice and the Commission, they explore when and why different types of value transfers are likely to be of interest to the competition authorities.
For more information on the work we do, see our patent litigation and competition litigation practice area pages.
Today we kick off our new podcast series, in which we will be exploring the competition law issues associated with patent settlement agreements. Following the Court of Justice’s judgment in Generics UK (‘Paroxetine’) last year and in eager anticipation of its ruling in Lundbeck (‘Citalopram’) later this month, we will be examining the current status of the law and highlighting practical tips for our listeners to be aware of.
In this first episode, competition law expert Sophie Lawrance introduces the competition law treatment of patent settlement agreements and so-called pay-for-delay agreements. Sophie starts by laying the groundwork, beginning with the definition of patent settlements used in the European Commission’s 2009 Pharmaceutical Sector Enquiry Final Report, and coming up to date with the most recent case law. (As with the rest of this series, we will focus on the EU principles, which at this stage are equally applicable in the UK, post-Brexit.)
The series will continue throughout this week, with experts from our competition litigation, patent litigation and commercial & IP transactional teams sharing their insights on some of the most important aspects of patent settlement agreements, including value transfers, no-challenge clauses and practical implications for those drafting patent settlement agreements.
Watch the animated version of this episode, which include a useful example, here on our Bristows Law Firm YouTube channel.
Bristows' Brands, Designs & Copyright group introduce our upcoming publications - Trade Marks Review of the Year and Designs & Copyright Review of the Year.
Toby Headdon, Abbie Wise and Stephanie Taylor talk through why we're changing the format of our launch to a podcast series as well as case law and developments we will cover.
Trade mark cases include:
- Louis Vuitton's checkerboard pattern - distinctive character in trade marks and burden of proof on third parties easyGroup's challenge to a Columbian airline EASYFLY
- Can a claim be served out of jurisdiction? Monster Energy's opposition to Robot Energy appli-cation for HYBRID - the analysis of bad faith
- Planet Art's challenge to Photobox - weak distinctive character and trade mark infringement
- What brand owners should consider following Brexit
Design and copyright cases include:
- How the UK responded to the CJEU’s seminal decision in Cofemel which concerns what con-stitutes a copyright ‘work’ and whether a requirement of aesthetic appeal is permissible
- The CJEU’s decision in the Brompton Bike case, concerning whether copyright can protect shapes which are necessary to achieve a technical result
- A UK court decision which revisited unregistered design right protection of clothing (and in par-ticular, a pair of figure-hugging jeans)
- A Court of Appeal decision involving rights in commercially valuable sports data
- A CJEU decision involving performers’ and producers’ rights to compensation when their sound recordings are played in public in the EU
- The effects of Brexit regarding design rights, copyright and database rights
Faye Harrison and Rosalie Hayes talk about deepfakes and facial recognition technology and discuss how they can hurt both privacy rights and even our trust into the media, law enforcement, and politics.
Tune in to listen to our data protection experts debate on the potential solutions to balance freedom of expression and enforcement against fake content; dos and don'ts of using facial recognition, and what are the rules to follow.
Read our Data Protection Top 10 publication.
Mac Macmillan and Charlie Hawes explore how effectively (or not) the USA protects the data privacy of its citizens despite a “smorgasbord of privacy legislations” compared to Europe and how the tables are turned when it comes to children’s data.
Listen to learn more on the HIPAA, CCPA, the Safe Data Act and the (exciting!) prospect of a US national law.
We’ll also compare the American Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) to the European GDPR in protecting the data rights of younger users and consumers. Is there still a gap to be filled by the legislators?
Read our Data Protection Top 10 publication.
In the third episode of the Bristows Data protection podcast series, we talk about adtech and how the industry is reacting to the various new (stricter!) requirements from regulators and the pandemic.
Jamie Drucker, Rob Powell, and Mike Edgar will go to the earth of a few important points:
- The ICO investigation in the Adtech industry - will we see enforcement after the end of the pandemic?
- The challenges in complying to the #webcookies rules: how do you effectively get granular consent? Can you bundle your request, can you re-tick the boxes?
- Covid’s mixed effects on the industry: its strain on revenues for some channel owners and the opportunities arising from brands doubling down on digital ads
Read our Data Protection Top 10 publication.
Litigation experts Alex Keenlyside and Toby Headdon talk about group actions in relation to data breaches. In this episode they’ll focus on a few key examples:
- Representative actions like the Atkinson v Equifax dispute
- The Group Litigation Orders granted in the cases against BA and Morrison’s
- The Supreme Court Lloyd v Google case - and its implications for data controllers
Read the DP Top 10 here.
Emma Macalister Hall, Zoe Walkinshaw, and Fiona Campbell had an amazing discussion on when GDPR applies to the medical sphere, and how data protection regulators are enforcing it during the pandemic to protect individual rights while also supporting contact tracing programs. Some of the questions answered include:
- Consent is not the only ground available for GDPR – but what happens when patients or research subjects withdraw their consent?
- Can genomic data be anonymised to pseudonymised at all to remove it from the scope of GDPR?
- How do we balance the privacy of a population against its health?
- Has the pandemic had an impact on the level of enforcement by the data protection authorities?
Read our Data Protection Top 10 publication.
Mark Watts, head of the data protection team at Bristows, introduces our first podcast series on the annual Data Protection Top 10 publication. The series covers many issues and trends in the sector, from deepfakes to the ICO investigation into AdTech, the Schrems decision, and more.
Q. Policies can sometimes be too specific, could this factor in to how difficult it is implement privacy regulations?
Q. You are well known for your sartorial elegance. What are your thoughts about dress down at work?
Q. Can you tell us your concerns about accessibility in the development of software and devices?
Q. Will we get to an adequate level of security without policy intervention from government?