Best legal reads of the week - July 20 - 24
Published on 24th July 2015
What are the top legal reads of the week from around the web written by Osborne Clarke’s people? Which posts have been shared the most via social media?
Here’s this week’s best reads…
Cyber security in the construction industry: What to do if you have suffered an attack?
It seems that barely a week goes by without another high profile cyber breach (Ebay, JP Morgan Chase, Home Depot and Sony, twice, spring to mind). If those in the construction industry are not as concerned about cyber security as other sectors, they certainly should be. Organisations may hold plans and schematics for current and past projects which need to be protected against access by terrorist or other malevolent organisations. Similarly, unwanted access to FM systems such as security or BMS could cause serious operational difficulties or present health, safety and security risks.
Financial markets disputes: new court “Financial List” announced
Plans have been announced for a new, specialist ‘Financial List’, which will hear significant claims relating to financial markets. The intention behind the new List is to provide a faster, more efficient and more economical forum for financial dispute resolution and to promote London as a venue for international disputes in the financial services sector.
Government consultation on changes to renewable subsidies for solar PV
On Tuesday this week [22 July 2015] the Government launched consultations on changes to both the Renewables Obligation and Feed in Tariff schemes, which may impact projects that many are currently working on.
[In World Intellectual Property Report] Huawei v ZTE: the questions that need answering
Last week, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down its judgement on the Huawei v ZTE case to do with standard-essential patents (SEP) and injunctions. The CJEU ruled that where standardised technology is concerned, the bringing of an injunction could be an abuse of dominance if the SEP holder hasn’t attempted to conclude a licence agreement with its alleged infringer on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND). Head of Patent Litigation Lorna Brazell wrote an article on the decision for World Intellectual Property Review on how the ruling is not as clear cut or comprehensive as it could be. You can read it here.
