United Kingdom

The “Internet of Things” (IoT)—the network of consumer devices connected to the Internet through digital connections and sensors—has dramatically grown over the past five years. A McKinsey analysis estimated that the potential annual economic impact of IoT in 2025 could be between $4 trillion and $11 trillion, with value accruing in manufacturing, urban spaces, human wellness, retail, autonomous vehicles, homes, and other sectors. An analysis by Gartner, Inc. estimated that in 2018, nearly 11.2 billion connected things will be in use globally, and that this figure will surpass 20 billion by 2020.

IoT already has global reach. Nearly one-third of the overall installed IoT base is located outside China, North America, and Western Europe. And although IoT use will continue to grow in commerce and industry, more than 63% of IoT-connected units are already available on the consumer market. Some “smart” consumer products—such as fitness monitors, wearable devices, smart thermostats, and smart TVs—are well-established. In the coming years, connected devices will continue to expand in other categories, including kitchen appliances, toys, and medical devices, among many others.
Continue Reading Covington Internet of Things Update: U.S., U.K., and E.U. Regulators Turn Focus to IoT

On 22 May 2013, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on the English law of confidential information.  The case represents a helpful guide as to how confidential information may be protected by a business after the end of an employment contract.

The case, Vestergaard Frandsen A/S (now called MVF 3 ApS) and others v Bestnet Europe Limited and others [2013] UKSC 31, deals with facts that may represent a fairly common business scenario.  In the case, one employee left a business, together with a consultant, to set up a rival business.  In the course of their work at the new business, the ex-consultant used what was, unbeknownst to the ex-employee, confidential information that the court deemed to be a trade secret from the prior business.

Considering these facts, the High Court found the ex-consultant liable for breach of confidence.  Expanding on that finding, the Supreme Court found that the ex-employee — in contrast to the ex-consultant — should not be liable for breach of confidence, because unlike the ex-consultant the ex-employee had had no knowledge of the trade secret when working for their former employer, and because the ex-employee hadn’t subsequently realised that the information had ever originated from their former employer when it was being used in the new rival business.

Summarising the Supreme Court’s logic, Lord Neuberger stated that “an action for breach of confidence is based ultimately on conscience”.  In other words, the ex-employee was not liable because she had no knowledge of the breach, so her conscience couldn’t have been affected – despite the fact that the ex-employee had arguably assisted in the use and misuse of the trade secret in the course of running a rival business.Continue Reading UK Supreme Court Rules on Case Involving Misuse of Trade Secrets by Former Employee

By Matthew Edwards and Jacqueline Clover

Last month, we blogged about the launch of the London Stock Exchange High Growth Segment. As part of another programme of measures to support UK and EU start-ups, Future Fifty, a new fast-track programme for businesses, was announced by Chancellor George Osborne on 25 April 2013 and aims to help 50 high-growth companies develop so that they can successfully list in the UK.

Future Fifty has been developed in partnership with the Tech City Investment Organisation.  To apply, a UK, EU or UK-controlled foreign business needs to have been trading for at least 24 months and must demonstrate revenue growth of at least 100 per cent. each year.Continue Reading Future Fifty: A UK Initiative to Help High-Growth Companies

By Jacqueline Clover and Helena Marttila-Bridge

On 5 February 2013, the English High Court handed down a judgment in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v Harris & Ors [2013] EWHC 159 (Ch), according to which copyright owners have no proprietary rights to the money derived from infringement of their copyright.

The case involved an indexing website, Newzbin2, which made available to its users infringing copies of films and TV shows.  The claimants, who were owners or exclusive licensees of the copyright in those works, started copyright infringement proceedings against Newzbin2’s operator and companies alleged to have links to the website.  The claimants asked the High Court to grant proprietary injunctions over the proceeds that the defendants had derived from the copyright infringement.  The injunctions would have prevented the defendants from dealing in or disposing of the proceeds.
Continue Reading The English High Court Rules that a Copyright Infringer Is a Trespasser, Not a Thief

On 28 November 2012, following an 18-month investigation, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) announced that it had fined the joint owners of Tetrus Telecoms (Tetrus) a total of £440,000 under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR).  The fine penalized Tetrus for sending millions of unsolicited text messages promoting opportunities to claim compensation for…
Continue Reading ICO Issues £440,000 Fine to Telecoms Company for Illegal Direct Marketing

On 29 October 2012, the UK’s All-Party Parliamentary Intellectual Property Group published a report examining the Government’s role in promoting and protecting intellectual property (IP).  According to the report, which is based on the written submissions of almost 60 interested bodies, Government departments often fail to understand the importance of IP to the growth of UK’s economy. The report also criticizes the UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) for having lost the confidence of a large number of its main stakeholders in its IP policy-making and recommends that greater ministerial leadership will be exercised over the IPO’s activities.  While the report welcomes the IPO’s increased investment in research, the Office is critiqued for failing to view IP as a property right and promoting the creation and development of new IP.
Continue Reading UK Government Urged to Champion Intellectual Property Rights