Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
The firm’s first intake will begin in early 2022 and is set to include five roles across its network. Two roles will be based in London, two in Australia, and one in Asia. The programme will last 18 months in total, providing graduates with the opportunity to gain varied experience through rotation in several specialist areas, including Legal Automation and Technology, Pricing, Legal Project Management and Process Design. At the end of the scheme, graduates will be given the opportunity to complete a three-month secondment with either a client or another team, before they move into a full-time position in the Legal Operations function.
Herbert Smith Freehills established its global Legal Operations function back in 2018, with the purpose of helping clients in areas including using new technologies to develop collaborative working and applying innovative methods to solving issues. The firm’s global Legal Operations function works alongside its Alternative Legal Services team to advance holistic solutions that provide clients with more value and operational efficiencies.
The launch of the new graduate scheme sees Herbert Smith Freehills join a growing assembly of law firms that are establishing training schemes in non-traditional areas of the legal sector.
David Hole, Associate at EIP, explores the construction of technical terms.
It is said that ‘if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck’. However, if a claim refers to ‘a duck’ feature, what does that imply about how the claimed feature walks or quacks?
In two cases involving the same parties relating to patents said to be essential to 3GPP standards, the claims defined features using terms that already had some technical connotations. The judge was required to determine the extent to which those technical connotations affected the scope of the claims.
A claim term can be a ‘term of art’ if it has a special (and unambiguous) meaning, in the relevant field, at the priority date[1]. However, there is often disagreement about the meaning of a term (e.g. [2], [3]) in which case purposive (‘normal’) construction must be carried out to determine the scope of the claim.
In the first case [4], the claim referred to:
"transferring....information....based on pilot symbols".
At issue were the limitations implied by the use of the term ‘pilot symbols’. Pilot symbols were known to have certain properties which made them particularly useful for certain functions. One of these functions was to allow a receiver to determine a channel quality.
The defendants argued that ‘pilot symbols’:
"must be understood as referring to something which is used for not only [transferring information] but also for its conventional purpose of channel quality determination".
This reasoning was based on the manner in which the patent described the invention and contrasted it with known ways in which pilot symbols were used. For example, the patent noted that in the prior art, pilot symbols ‘are transferred for the only purpose of channel conditions determination’. A benefit of the invention was said to be that “as the signals representative of pilot symbol patterns convey another information, the resources of the telecommunication network are used efficiently.”
On this, the judge concluded that the skilled person would understand that while the pilot symbols must be capable of being used for channel quality determination, it was not necessary that they are in fact used for this purpose. If such a limitation were to exist, “the skilled person would expect the claims to have said so”. On this construction, a prior art message which was not suitable for channel quality determination did not fall within the scope of the claim.
The judge found the patent essential to a communications standard in which pilot symbols were used, but not for channel quality determination.
In the second case [5], the claim referred to:
"a length indicator for indicating [purpose 1]"
‘purpose 1’ did not relate to indicating a length, and there was no explicit requirement in the claim that the ‘length indicator’ had to be able to indicate a length.
As in the first case, the invention centred on the use of a known feature (in this case, a ‘length indicator’) for a further or different purpose.
In the prior art (acknowledged in the patent)was an indicator which could be used for a purpose very similar to ‘purpose 1’, but could not indicate length.
The judge considered that the term ‘length indicator’ was used specifically to exclude this prior art, because the patentee could have omitted the word ‘length’ otherwise:
136. ...This helps to show that the term 'length indicator' was used in claim 1 as granted to exclude the [prior art indicator], there being no other words in the claim which could perform that role. ...
137. ...Accordingly, I find that to fall within the term 'length indicator' in the Patent, the field in question must be capable of [indicating length], even if certain values are capable of being used to [perform purpose 1]. If the field in question is not so capable, then in my judgement, it is not a 'length indicator'.
This construction meant that the alleged infringement (which did not perform the function of a length indicator) fell outside of the scope of the claim, on normal construction.
The judge also found no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Applying similar reasoning to the third Actavis question [6],he held that the patentee intended strict compliance with the claim scope in order to avoid the prior art: “Otherwise the claim would be invalid”.
These cases give useful insight into how the scope of a claim may depend on how the invention is framed in the specification.
When claims are drafted using existing technical terms, it is important to consider characteristics that may be understood by the skilled person as implicit in such terms, and how these terms are used in the specification (see also [7]). Unless, of course, your invention always walks and quacks like a duck!
This article was originally published on EIP’s website: https://www.eip.com/uk/
[1] Qualcomm v Nokia [2008] EWHC 329 (Pat) at 9
Qualcomm Incorporated (A Delaware Corporation) v Nokia Corporation (A Finnish Company) [2008] EWHC 329 (Pat) (03 March 2008) (bailii.org)
[2] TQ Delta v ZyXEL [2019] EWHC 562 (Ch) at 72-78
TQ Delta, LLC v ZYXEL Communications Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 562 (Ch) (11 March 2019) (bailii.org)
[3] at 96
Moelnlycke Health Care AB v Brightwake Ltd (t/a Advancis Medical) [2011] EWHC 376 (Pat) (25 February 2011) (bailii.org)
[4] Mitsubishi Electric Corporation & Anor v Archos SA & Ors [2021] EWHC 1639 (Pat)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2021/1639.html
[5] Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co, Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 1048 (Pat)
[6] Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd & Ors [2017] UKSC 48 at 88
Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd & Ors [2017] UKSC 48 (12 July 2017) (bailii.org)
[7] Bringing sufficiency within range: Birss J recasts the Regeneron principles for process claims, EIP | Patent Attorneys and Litigators
Holgate said the employees were given the watches, which were later valued at $20,000 in total, as a “thank you” gift for their hard work. Holgate rejected suggestions that they were paid for with taxpayers funds. However, the gifts immediately became a political issue.
Earlier this year, Holgate told a Senate inquiry that Australia Post’s chair, Lucio di Bartolomeo, had unlawfully stood her down from her role as CEO. However, Australia Post denied the claim, stating that Holgate had agreed to stand aside and later resigned. Subsequently, Holgate claimed she had been bullied out of her role by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who decried the gifts after the incident became public.
Australia Post has since said it regrets the difficult circumstances surrounding Holgate’s departure from the company and has also agreed to pay $100,000 towards its former CEO’s legal costs. However, the company has made it clear that the payments to Holgate will be made without any admission of liability. Holgate has now released Australia Post from all legal claims.
Senior Litigation Paralegal Daniel Powell considers whether air passengers taking flights operated by non-EU/UK airlines should be entitled to compensation under European Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (as amended in the UK by the EU Withdrawal Act) (“the Regulation”) for a flight delay in a circumstance where they have booked to fly from one non-EU/UK destination to another non-EU/UK destination, but with a connecting flight from a UK/ EU destination, and this connecting flight is delayed for more than three hours. This issue has not yet been the subject of a clear decision either by the UK or EU courts.
Further, as the UK has now left the EU and its courts will continue to interpret the meaning of an EU regulation that has been incorporated into UK domestic law, questions may arise as to whether or not the English courts should depart from jurisprudence established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
This issue, therefore, has potentially significant implications for passengers, international airlines and the operation of English common law in the post-Brexit era.
The relevant provision of the Regulation is art. 3(1)(a), which states that the Regulation shall apply “to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies;”. Therefore, a threshold question for the court will be to decide how to interpret the expression “passengers departing from an airport” in this context? Is the term intended to include every individual flight departure in the passenger’s journey or only the first airport of departure?
The current position, as adopted by the CJEU in the case of Claudia Wegener v Royal Air Maroc SA, C-537/17 (31 May 2018) (“Wegener”), is that a passenger’s entire journey, made under the same booking, including connecting flights, should be viewed as a contiguous whole with a single point of departure. Accordingly, it is commonly understood that passengers are only entitled to compensation under the Regulation in the event of a delay if the passenger’s journey originates from a UK/EU airport. When passengers depart from a non-UK airport, any claims against the airline fall to be made under the Montreal Convention 1999, which only entitles them to seek damages, rather than a fixed amount of regulatory compensation, against an airline in such incidents as delay and lost or damaged baggage. Damages for delay however are often more difficult to prove compared to claims for a fixed amount of compensation under the Regulation.
This issue is currently being litigated in England in a case pending before the Court of Appeal. If the Court decides that passengers departing on connecting flights from UK airports may rely on the Regulation where the flight leg from the UK is delayed, this may expand passenger rights under the Regulation. It would mean that passengers could be compensated for disruption experienced during flights from the UK, even where the passenger originally flew from a non-UK/EU airport. Given the importance of London, in particular, as a major hub for international flight connections, such an outcome may potentially benefit a large number of passengers who might not otherwise be eligible under the Regulation.
On the other hand, such an outcome may also have serious financial implications for non-EU/UK airlines performing connecting flights from the UK. A change to the status quo would potentially lead to a significantly larger number of claims against the non-UK/EU airlines in a period when the airline industry is struggling or still recovering from significant financial losses incurred due to the restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In Lipton and Another v BA City Flyer Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 454, another flight delay compensation case, Lord Justice Green reviewed the relevant post-Brexit legislative framework. He noted the Court’s power to depart from CJEU jurisprudence but observed that the Court had not found it necessary to do so on the facts of that case (at para. 83). If the Court of Appeal were to decide to depart from the EU decision of Wegener, this could be a precedent-setting example of an English appellate court overturning CJEU jurisprudence.
If the Court of Appeal were to depart from or reach a conclusion different from Wegener, then the rights of passengers claiming in England would diverge from those claiming in the courts of EU member states, although the right to compensation originates from the same Regulation. Although this might improve the attractiveness of UK airports for flight connections, such an outcome would undoubtedly result in confusion. EU passengers, and possibly those from non-EU countries, may also attempt to rely on the UK Court’s definition of the “departing” airport to make claims against both EU and non-EU airlines if their connecting flight departed from a UK airport. This would possibly lead the CJEU to remove that divergence by bringing its case law into line with English law, thereby expanding passenger rights even further, with consequential financial implications for airlines. A decision on this issue is expected to be received towards the end of this year.
Daniel Powell, Senior Litigation Paralegal, Zaiwalla & Co. The author’s firm represents the defendant airline in the pending appeal mentioned in this comment.
Car accidents are often unavoidable occurrences that come with severe and life-altering consequences. Studies show that around 1.3 million people die every year due to road traffic collisions, where most of the victims are pedestrians, motorcyclists, and cyclists. Sadly, many of these traffic accidents are a result of careless and reckless driving. It is therefore important that we drive defensively at all times. Here are some safety driving tips to avoid careless driving accidents.
Regardless of how long you’ve been driving, you must obey all traffic laws. In the United States, some driving rules include:
Remember that these traffic rules were made to keep everyone safe, so you must follow them at all costs. Abiding by them can reduce the chance of you being involved in a car accident. In addition, make sure that you and your passengers are always wearing seat belts.
Speeding is one of the usual causes of car accidents. In some cases, It might not always be the primary cause of an accident, but it usually plays a significant factor. If you have an important event or meeting to attend, make sure you allow yourself plenty of time so that you won’t be tempted to drive hastily.
Distracted driving is another common cause of car collisions. Several distractions can keep you from focusing on the road. Avoid texting, eating, changing radio stations, talking on the phone, mindlessly talking to other passengers, applying makeup, and other activities that can impede your concentration. When you are distracted, it is easy for you to violate traffic laws, resulting in a fatal accident. Make sure that whenever you are behind the wheel, your only priority is to drive safely. Never multi-task even if you think you can do it competently.
Always make sure that you keep a safe distance between yourself and the other vehicles on the road. Never tailgate, even if the car in front of you is driving slowly. Keep in mind that you cannot predict what the other driver is contemplating. If they suddenly stop or change lanes, you may not have enough time to react accordingly.
Driving can be stressful, especially if there are aggressive drivers on the road. Do not let anger get the better of you regardless of the situation. Road rage can lead to serious accidents, so always keep your emotions in check. Never yell, point fingers, or threaten other drivers. Remember that you have no control over other drivers, you can only control your own behaviours and actions. In the unfortunate event that you get involved in a car accident and get charged with careless driving, make sure to seek the assistance of an experienced lawyer right away. Your attorney might advise you to file a civil reservation to protect you from serious legal implications.
Always remember that driving is a privilege and not an entitlement. You must exert all efforts in making sure that you drive responsibly to avoid harming yourself and others.
The claim argued that Zoom violated its users’ privacy rights by sharing personal data with Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn, and allowing hackers to disrupt Zoom meetings in a practice known as “Zoombombing”. In the proposed class action, Zoom’s customers would either be eligible for a $25 refund or a 15% refund on their subscriptions to the video conferencing platform, depending on which sum is larger. The preliminary settlement, which was filed on Saturday afternoon, is still to be approved by US District Judge Lucy Koh in California.
Zoom has agreed to improve its security measures, which will include alerting users when other meeting participants use third-party apps. Zoom will also offer specialised training to employees on privacy and data handling. However, in agreeing to settle, the video conferencing platform has denied any wrongdoing, stating that the privacy and security of its users is a top priority for the company.
As demand for video calls increased during the coronavirus pandemic, Zoom has seen profits of around $1.3 billion from Zoom Meetings subscriptions from class members. However, the plaintiffs’ lawyers suggested that a settlement of $85 million was acceptable given the litigation risks. On top of this figure, they will also seek a maximum of $21.25 million for legal fees.
Harriet Murray, Senior Associate, Hunters Law LLP, explores the implications of paying for the coronavirus pandemic with a wealth tax.
Prompted by the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 crisis, in April 2020 a Wealth Tax Commission was established. It was composed of two academics and a barrister to assess whether a wealth tax would be desirable and deliverable in the UK. Their aim was "to provide policymakers with a solid evidence base" and "to deliver the first in-depth analysis of a wealth tax in the UK for almost half a century".
The Wealth Tax Commission worked with international experts including tax practitioners, economists and lawyers to study all aspects of a wealth tax including "issues of both principle and practice", and acknowledged funding from the Economic and Social Research Council through the CAGE at Warwick and a COVID-19 Rapid Response Grant, and also a grant from Atlantic Fellows for Social and Economic Equity's COVID-19 Rapid Response Fund.
Some key recommendations were:
It would be payable by anyone resident in the UK for more than four out of the previous seven years, including anyone claiming the status of a "non-dom". Non-residents would pay the wealth tax on any houses and land owned in the UK whether they own it directly or through trusts or companies.The Wealth Tax Commission did not recommend extending the tax to other assets owned by non-residents except perhaps foreign controlling shareholdings of UK private companies.
The Wealth Tax Commission does not make any recommendations on setting thresholds or rates for the wealth tax, since it is their view that this is a decision for politicians. However, the report contains illustrations of potential thresholds and rates, including that of a 5% rate (taxed as an annualised rate of 1% over five years) applied to a series of personal wealth thresholds ranging from £250,000 to £10 million.
A separate report from the Wealth Tax Commission gives detailed modelling of how much could be raised by a wealth tax, and from whom, at different rates and thresholds. A one-off wealth tax on all individual net worth above £500,000, for example, and charged at 1% a year for five years would raise £260 billion. By contrast, at a threshold of £2 million, it would raise £80 billion. As part of these illustrations, the Wealth Tax Commission clarifies that a wealth tax levied at 1% above £500,000 would require a couple to have net wealth exceeding £1 million before any wealth tax would be payable.
The Wealth Tax Commission has suggested that if, after an assessment date for the wealth tax has been fixed, someone suffers a drastic fall in their wealth for reasons outside of their control, that it would be possible to provide some relief against the tax due. If an individual genuinely could not pay the tax out of income and savings over the standard period payment of five years, then a "statutory deferral scheme" would apply so the tax could be deferred until there were sufficient liquid funds available. In the report, there is also a tentative suggestion of an indefinite deferral where a person's wealth tax bill was more than 10% of the combined total of net income (after all other taxes) and their liquid assets.
The Wealth Tax Commission cites four reasons for taxing all assets (horizontal fairness, vertical fairness, revenue, and avoidance) but recommends that there should be an exemption for any single item worth less than £3,000 to avoid unnecessary valuations and make filing simpler. It would also mean that for most individuals there would be no need to value any of their ordinary household possessions.
The Wealth Tax Commission suggests a one-off wealth tax arguing that it would be better for the economy than rises in VAT, income tax or National Insurance Contributions.
The Wealth Tax Commission's recommendation for a one-off wealth tax, they explain, is an exceptional response to a specific crisis to raise revenue "without discouraging work or spending". They acknowledge it would not fix the existing problems with inheritance tax, income tax on investment income, council tax or capital gains tax so they recommend that there should be reform of existing taxes on wealth as well.
The purpose of a vaccine passport is to allow governments and private businesses to confirm to what degree a person may be at risk of contracting COVID-19 or spreading it to others around them. In its most basic form, a vaccine passport is a (usually) digital record that confirms whether its bearer has received two, one or no doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. This is the model that the UK’s NHS COVID Pass uses. The EU Digital COVID Certificate (EUDCC) goes a step further by also containing information about its bearers’ recent test results and recovery status from COVID-19.
The EUDCC was implemented on 1 July, allowing carriers – who are either fully vaccinated, have contracted and recovered from COVID-19, or have tested negative for the virus within the past day – to use a digital or printed QR code to travel freely among the EU’s 27 member states. Some of these members have instated their own digital certificates for use within their borders, such as France’s health passport that regulates entry to clubs and (soon) bars, cafes and restaurants.
As of the time of writing, the US has no plans to implement a similar system at the national level, with individual states left to determine whether (and how) they will provide residents with a method of accessing state-verified health records. Meanwhile, the NHS COVID Pass remains an opt-in measure for businesses in the UK, though Prime Minister Boris Johnson has stated an intention to “to make full vaccination the condition of entry to nightclubs and other venues where large crowds gather” by the end of September, necessitating its uptake by the general public.
There are few historical precedents for such large-scale monitoring of a health condition. What legal complications will need to be considered in relation to this drastic measure? We spoke with a range of legal experts to get a sense of what might lie ahead.
There are few historical precedents for such large-scale monitoring of a health condition.
As far as the UK goes, one of the most significant pieces of legislation that vaccine passports must contend with is the Human Rights Act 1988. Article 8 of the Act guarantees the right to a “private and family life”, which is interpreted broadly to include personal identity. As John Szepietowski of Audley Chaucer Solicitors points out, this could be said to extend to one’s medical status as well, though this right may be suspended “in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
Key to the issue here is whether or not the use of vaccine passports is proportionate to the crisis at hand. While necessarily restricting some movement, this would be limited only to specific venues and would not prevent other meetings or social interactions more broadly. By virtue of being so limited in scope, Szepietowski argues, the passports are unlikely to infringe upon Article 8. Other notable Articles of the Act – such as Article 2’s “right to life” or Article 5’s “right to liberty” – may be pertinent to the question of mandatory vaccination, but are sufficiently separated from the issue of passports as to pose little concern in this area.
A key factor that has delayed widespread implementation of vaccine passports has been its lack of availability to younger, less vulnerable adults as vaccinations for the more at-risk have been prioritised. As Szepietowski notes, the creation of a system that tacitly restricts freedoms based on age raises the possibility of discrimination.
“Beyond this, however, there could still be age discrimination because more young people are concerned about the long-term impact of the jab,” Szepietowski continues. “This links to gender discrimination as well, as more women than men have concerns about fertility and the vaccine, and so are less likely to take the vaccine. Likewise, those from Black or Minority Ethnic backgrounds are less statistically less keen on the jab, and so passports could be seen to discriminate against them as well.”
[ymal]
This situation for young people has begun to shift, as all adults in the UK have now been given the opportunity to receive two vaccinations (though not all have yet been able to attend their appointments), but issues of discrimination in other areas, such as race, have risen to the fore. The EUDCC has already come under fire from the African Union for not recognising the Indian Covishield vaccine, which has been distributed to many low- and middle-income countries through the EU-supported COVAX programme, and vaccine uptake among ethnic minorities remains proportionately low.
As age and race are classed as protected characteristics under the Equality Act, there may be a legal basis to claim discrimination here. However, a strong counterpoint exists in the vaccines’ availability to all, with no need to bring an ID or any more personal information to a walk-in vaccination centre other than a name, address and date of birth. Once vaccine rollout programmes in the UK and elsewhere begin to wind down, the state of being unvaccinated is far more likely to come down to personal choice than an act of discrimination against a protected group of people.
Perhaps the biggest challenge standing in the way of widespread vaccine passport implementation is the security risk represented by the data that the passports would be based upon. Any kind of medical data is already valuable due to its personal nature, and its sensitivity only increases when it is relied upon for travel and access to local facilities.
A particular concern raised by Tim Mackey, principal security strategist at the Synopsys Cybersecurity Research Centre, is that of third-party apps – whose use has become widespread in Europe as part of accessing the EUDCC – and the possibility of a bug or an outside attacker disrupting their function. This point ties in with the need to ensure that a digital passport’s authenticity in the first place.
Any kind of medical data is already valuable due to its personal nature, and its sensitivity only increases when it is relied upon for travel and access to local facilities.
“Significant coordination between international entities is required to ensure that the data recorded by the app is correct and complete,” Mackey explains, noting that the act of safely transferring data to the app would be its own challenge. “Once in the app, the data needs to be verifiably secure and stored in a tamper-evident form that itself can’t be modified.
Balfour+Manson chairman Elaine Motion raises further questions regarding how the information pertinent to vaccine passports will be handled by the private sector: “For example, if shown to nightclub personnel, do they store the information and if so how, for how long and who can access that information?” The question of how long a government organisation might retain the data is also unclear. Whatever the case, the implementation of a passport requirement for travel and domestic activity will require intense scrutiny to ensure that the sensitive information at its base is not mishandled.
Potential employment-related issues with the passport system largely intersect with concerns about discrimination based on vaccination status. While most offices have adopted a vaccine-positive mentality, and “no jab no job” policies have been instituted in many areas, a small percentage of the workforce who have voiced opposition to being compelled to be vaccinated will likely oppose the requirement of a passport to verify their medical history as a prerequisite for work. If these employees also belong to a protected group, disciplinary action against them may result in a discrimination claim. The same issue may arise if it is perceived that employees are treated differently based on their vaccination status.
In cases where employees are expected to work with those most vulnerable to COVID, of course, the situation may be different. From October, anyone working in a CQC-registered care home in England for residents requiring nursing or personal care will be required by law to have received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine unless they are subject to a medical exemption. If any other professions should receive this treatment, however, they are likely to only make up a fraction of the overall UK workforce, however.
A small percentage of the workforce who have voiced opposition to being compelled to be vaccinated will likely oppose the requirement of a passport to verify their medical history as a prerequisite for work.
Furthermore, Katten Muchin Rosenman partner Christopher Hitchins points out that employers would need to comply with GDPR when storing this information, sparking its own host of pitfalls. “According to the UK data protection regulator (the ICO), the reason for recording your employees’ vaccination status must be clear and compelling,” Hitchins notes. “If you have no specified use for this information and are recording it on a ‘just in case’ basis, or if the employer can achieve their goal without collecting this data, they are unlikely to be able to justify collecting it.”
A company that mandates a vaccine passport would therefore do well to ensure that its need is genuine and take all due care to avoid altering its treatment of employees based on their COVID-19 records.
Perhaps the only certain result of the widespread rollout of vaccine passports is the strain that it will place on the affected industries. The travel, hospitality and leisure sectors, already hampered by a year and a half of slackened demand and heightened regulation, will be further pressed by the responsibility to validate these passports and handle situations with customers who feel they ought to be exempt.
Lucy Gordon, Director of the Employment team at Walker Morris, stresses that the added pressure may be too much for struggling businesses to handle. She states: “Employers will need to allocate resources to checking passes, and train staff on what to look out for and how to handle difficult cases. This all comes at a time when the hospitality industry is already strained and suffering additional resource issues due to the “pingdemic”, with staff being forced to isolate or having to stay at home to look after family members.”
It is also unknown for how long the vaccine passport system will last – likely until the WHO declares the pandemic finished, whenever that may be. Until then, we will watch with close interest as the situation develops in the UK and internationally.
Discroll died in September 2016, eighteen months after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Her relatives had sought up to $50 million in damages, claiming that Johnson & Johnson knew that both its baby powder and its Shower to Shower products were unsafe. The lawsuit was brought by her niece who oversees Driscoll’s estate.
However, following a three-week trial, jurors in St. Clair County, Illinois, ruled in favour of Johnson & Johnson. Although the company said that the verdict reflected the science and facts of the situation, Johnson & Johnson also expressed their deepest sympathy for anyone suffering from cancer.
In 2020, Johnson & Johnson set aside $3.9 billion for legal expenses, predominantly for talc-related liabilities such as this one. Recently, the company said it faces around 34,600 lawsuits over its talc-based powders. Leigh O’Dell, who represented Elizabeth Discroll’s family in the case, said that there is overwhelming evidence that links genital talc to ovarian cancers.
Irish specialist software integration firm SL Controls was acquired by NNIT Group, one of Denmark’s leading suppliers of IT services in the global life sciences industry. Philip Lee acted for SL Controls on its acquisition by NNIT A/S, while Capital Law CPH and Dillon Eustace acted for the buyer.
SL Controls is an international provider of equipment system-integrated solutions to various world-leading brands in the medtech, pharmaceutical, healthcare and technology spheres, and is expected to meet target revenues of more than €10 million in 2021. Its acquisition is expected to strengthen NNIT’s solutions within production IT and provide SL Controls with new opportunities to continue its global growth.
The deal represents an enterprise value of €16.9 million, comprising an up-front payment of €12.7 million before adjustments with an earn-out element of €4.2 million.
The Philip Lee team included Corporate and M&A team members John Given, Rebecca McEvoy, Rebecca Clabby and Daniel Ryan. The Dillon Eustace team was led by Adrian Benson, Partner in the Corporate and M&A teams, with support from David Lawless, Head of Tax.
