"I would say that the amount of time I take to draft a good, comprehensive submission has been cut down by at least 60 to 70%. Having all these sources, commentary and journals at my fingertips is brilliant."
ParrisWhittaker
Access all documents on Abstract
The abstract for a patent must include a concise summary of what is in the patent specification.
The purpose of the abstract is to assist with patent searching.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.
For our full legal glossary and more legal research sources, register for a free Lexis+ trial
Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (PRIIPs) Regulation—timeline [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is no longer maintained. This timeline outlines both the regulatory efforts before the legislative proposal for the regulation was adopted and the subsequent developments in relation to Regulation 1286/2014/EU on Key Information Documents (KIDs) for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs) (EU PRIIPs Regulation) and the onshored UK version of this regulation (Retained Regulation 1286/2014/EU, UK PRIIPs Regulation). The EU and UK PRIIPs Regulations create uniform rules for the format and content of the KIDs to be drawn up by PRIIPs manufacturers, and for the provision of KIDs to retail investors in order to enable them to understand the main features and risks of PRIIPs. A complex framework of regulation has been developed in order to address the risks, gaps, inconsistencies in ensuring investors protection and trust in packaged retail investment products. The European Commission's (the Commission) work on packaged investment products has its roots in a request by The Economic and Financial Affairs...
Surrender of lease—acting for the landlord—checklist This Checklist sets out some of the key steps and issues that the landlord should consider when contemplating taking a surrender of a lease from its tenant. It is not exhaustive and you must always consider whether there are any other issues that need to be addressed in your particular circumstances. The Checklist assumes that: • the surrender is express and not by operation of law, and • there will be no re-grant in favour of the tenant immediately following the surrender This checklist can be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Lease surrenders and Checklist Surrender of lease—acting for the tenant—checklist. How to use this Checklist Whilst the mechanics of a surrender of a lease are similar to a sale and purchase (because the tenant is selling and the landlord is buying), there are some differences. The first section (Key considerations) in this Checklist sets out key issues to consider with further detail in the table in Procedure when dealing with the surrender...
Discover our 5 Checklists on Abstract
A patent for an invention grants the proprietor the right to exclude others from using the invention within a particular jurisdiction for a limited period of time. A patent only comes into being once it has been registered—in most countries this requires the patent application to be examined by the national patent office to confirm that it satisfies the patentability requirements. The process of writing and filing a patent application and the examination of the patent application by the patent office is referred to as patent prosecution.While patent law remains a largely national law, with national patent offices operating in each territory to examine and grant patent applications and national courts dealing with enforcement of those national patents, in some areas of the world, countries have developed regional patent offices which are able to examine and grant patents for all Member States. There are several such offices, two in Africa (the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) and Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OAPI)), the Eurasian Patent Office (covering...
Case C- 377/20 Servizio Elettrico Nazionale and Others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato and Others [Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this case hub reflects the position of the date of judgment of 12 May 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C- 377/20 Servizio Elettrico Nazionale and Others—a national reference from Italy seeking clarification on various issues concerning the interpretation and application of Article 102 TFEU. Latest developments On 9 December 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment proposed (amongst other things) that when an undertaking loses the legal monopoly on a market, it must refrain, throughout the liberalisation phase of that market, from resorting to the means it had under its former monopoly, which, as such, are not available to its competitors, for the purpose of maintaining, other than on its own merits, a dominant position on the newly-liberalised market. The unbundled subsidiaries of that former monopoly undertaking had a special responsibility to refrain from any behaviour on the market that...
Discover our 198 Practice Notes on Abstract
Special administration—special administrators’ progress report [investment bank name] (in special administration) [Joint] Special Administrators’ Progress Report for the six-month period [date] to [date] Notice: About this Report • This Report has been prepared by [names of special administrators], the Special Administrators of [investment bank name] (in special administration), solely to comply with their statutory duty under the Investment Bank Special Administration (England and Wales) Rules 2011, SI 2011/1301, r 122 to provide creditors and clients with an update on the progress of the special administration and for no other purpose. This Report is not suitable to be relied upon by any other person, or for any other purpose, or in any other context. • This Report has not been prepared in contemplation of it being used, and is not suitable to be used, to inform any investment decision in relation to the debt of or any financial interest in [investment bank name] (in special administration). • Any estimated outcomes for creditors and clients included in this Report are...
Ireland—Letter to Garda×requesting Garda abstract report Superintendant Road Traffic Accident: [place of accident] On: [date of accident] Our Client: [name of client] Vehicle: [make and model] Registration Number: [number] Name of Driver Responsible: [name] Vehicle: [make and model] Registration Number: [number] This is a precedent letter to the Gardaà requesting a Garda abstract report and access to any CCTV footage which may still be available. It is helpful to provide the Gardaà with as much information as possible about the accident in the heading of the letter. Investigating Garda: [name and number if known] We are instructed by [name], who was involved in the above accident. We understand that the Gardaà investigated the circumstances of this accident and we should be grateful if you would let us know whether a copy of the Garda abstract report is yet available. If so, can you let us have a copy of the same, subject to payment of the relevant fee? [If the report is not yet available, please can you confirm the...
Dive into our 16 Precedents related to Abstract
A statutory undertaker requires a right to lay cables across land. The land owner is insisting on what the statutory undertaker regards as unreasonable consideration. Does the statutory undertaker have compulsory purchase powers to acquire an easement or wayleave? Electricity Act 1989 Section 10(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 (EA 1989) provides two methods for electricity supply companies (which are licence holders under EA 1989) to obtain rights over land. The first is by compulsory acquisition of the necessary land or rights under EA 1989, Sch 3. The second is by acquisition of a ‘necessary wayleave’, pursuant to EA 1989, Sch 4. For further information, see Practice Note: Statutory wayleaves and rights of access. Compulsory acquisition Schedule 3 incorporates, with important adjustments, provisions of Part I of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. EA 1989, Sch 3, para 1 provides: '…the Secretary of State may authorise a licence holder to purchase compulsorily any land required for any purpose connected with the carrying on of the activities which he is authorised by...
If a bankruptcy order is made against an individual in England who then moves outside of the EU to live, would the individual be considered bankrupt in that foreign country? Would it be possible to pursue the individual for payment of a bankruptcy debt (as far as the English bankruptcy is concerned) against him in that foreign country? It may be possible to pursue the individual in the non-EU foreign country but not however, if the English bankruptcy order is recognised in the foreign country and/or the relevant debts which are discharged by the English bankruptcy are governed by English law. The English bankruptcy may be recognised in the relevant foreign country if that country accepts the ‘universalist’ or ‘modified’ principle of bankruptcy jurisdiction, see Practice Note: Comity and the court's inherent jurisdiction—application and effects. ‘Universalism’, meaning the doctrine that a bankruptcy order made in one country has worldwide effect provided that the debtor is domiciled or possibly has its ‘centre of main interests’ (COMI) in...
See the 12 Q&As about Abstract
Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: A transaction may be impugned under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) if it was done for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors, even if the transferor had no current creditors and contemplated only future hypothetical creditors at the time of the transaction. The focus is on the ‘purpose’ of the transaction, and not on ‘the degree of knowledge that a transferor has of the persons who are making, or may make, claims against him’. In this case, the appellant had disposed of a 50% beneficial share in a property at a time when he had no creditors (and a number of years before his liability to the respondent arose), but when he intended to engage on a course of litigation which could (and ultimately did) lead to costs awards against him. The prohibited purpose was established, and the transfer was set aside. Written by Alex Peplow, barrister at XXIV Old Buildings.
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the taxpayers’ argument that the relevant expenditure fell within section 298(1) of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 (CAA 2001) and concluded that, based on the proper interpretation of that provision, the expenditure was not incurred under a contract executed prior to the conclusion of the initial ten-year period, as required. Adam Craggs, partner at RPC, discusses the implications that the judgment has on taxpayers going forward.
Read the latest 387 News articles on Abstract
**Trials are provided to all UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
0330 161 1234