Copyright & associated rights transactions and management

Copyright recognises the skill and labour and the ‘creative stamp’ expended by an author in creating a work. Copyright is, put simply, a right to copy a work (the owner may also restrict acts other than copying). The law is set out mainly in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988), which took effect from 1 August 1989. Transitional provisions apply to pre-existing works.

In practice, one work tends to give rise to multiple copyrights. When considering copyright works, rights distinct from copyright, eg design rights, should also be considered as they may also apply to creative works. For an introduction to the law of copyright, see Practice Note: Introduction to copyright and associated rights.

Tracking developments in copyright law and practice

Copyright law has the sizeable task of responding to changes brought about by businesses and consumers operating in a digital age. As well as more organic legal developments, new technologies, the internet and post-IP completion day considerations provide an inexhaustible supply of challenges for those who do business in the UK and the rest of the world. To keep up with

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest IP News

Premier Inn rest easy after High Court rules no trade mark infringement in easyGroup claim (easyGroup v Premier Inn)

IP analysis: The High Court has dismissed a claim for trade mark infringement made against Premier Inn by easyGroup, arising from Premier Inn’s usage of ‘Rest easy’ in branding following an April 2021 rebrand. easyGroup alleged trade mark infringement under sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994) and subsequently sought declarations of invalidity against the Premier Inn series trade mark. The court held there was no infringement under TMA 1994, s 10(2), with ‘Rest easy’ being a common idiom in the English language and easyGroup having failed to evidence sufficient consumer confusion. Likewise, the judge found easyGroup’s TMA 194, s 10(3) claim failed, with no adequate evidence of detriment or unfair advantage having been offered. Accordingly, easyGroup’s claims for declarations of invalidity also failed. The judgment shed illuminating light on the use and admissibility of survey evidence in trade mark infringement claims, demonstrating the limits of its utility in circumstances where it is not sufficiently relevant or convincing. Written by Hallam Whitehead, solicitor at Knights.

IP weekly highlights—18 September 2025

This week's edition of IP weekly highlights includes: a hand-picked summary of news analysis, updates and new content from the world of IP. These highlights focus on the key rights of copyright and associated rights, database rights, trade marks and passing off, designs, and patents as well as covering issues relating to confidential information, know-how R&D and IP disputes all mainly from a UK and European perspective.

Selection, motivation, and success—lessons from Moderna v Pfizer (Modernatx Inc v Pfizer Ltd and other companies)

IP analysis: In a closely watched dispute over mRNA vaccine technology, the Court of Appeal upheld the validity of European Patent (UK) No 3 590 949 (‘EP949’), Moderna’s patent for mRNA molecules with all uracil nucleotides replaced by N1-methylpseudouridine–a modification at the heart of COVID-19 vaccine development. Pfizer/BioNTech’s challenge failed on both novelty and obviousness: the court found that the prior art (the UPenn patent application) did not clearly and unambiguously disclose Moderna’s specific combination, and that inventive step cannot be denied simply because a modification is “obvious to try” without a concrete expectation of success. For patent practitioners, the judgment reinforces that selection inventions are protected where prior art lacks a direct pointer, and that robust, practically relevant expert evidence is essential in complex biotech litigation. The decision sets a high bar for invalidating foundational patents in fast-moving scientific fields, especially where the technology is central to public health innovation. Written by Ruby Zahra, associate at Shoosmiths LLP.

Sweeping UK reforms a mixed bag for simplifying designs

Law360, London: Headline proposals by a government body to examine whether registered designs are novel and can potentially set aside protection for computer-generated designs could run counter to the intended goal of simplifying the design system, lawyers say.