New guidance published on liability for AI harms under English and Welsh common law

By Carlton Daniel, Paul Jinks and David Naylor on August 12, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, UK

Last month, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) published its much anticipated Legal Statement on Liability for AI Harms under English law (the Statement).

Whilst the Statement is not legally binding, its authors are a panel of eminent legal professionals and scholars. As such, the Statement carries a high-level of credibility and we would expect to see it cited in due course as the volume of AI cases coming before the courts increases. The Statement therefore provides valuable guidance on how the courts are likely to apply existing common law principles to a variety of AI scenarios.

The authors’ overall conclusion will reassure many organisations. English law is not starting from scratch on AI liability. Existing principles of contract, negligence, professional liability and misrepresentation are generally capable of dealing with AI-related disputes.

We consider below some of the key findings from the Statement.

Patent infringement litigation update: eBay’s abolition of the presumption of irreparable harm for permanent injunctions applies to preliminary injunctions

By David Elkins and Sam Deka on August 10, 2026 Posted in Patent Litigation, Patents

Background

Until 2006, district courts routinely granted permanent injunctions, along with damages, to prevailing patent owners after trial on the grounds that irreparable harm was presumed. The Supreme Court’s decision in eBay v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 393–94 (2006), represented a sea-change in patent infringement litigation. The decision abolished the presumption of irreparable harm caused by infringement, holding that a patent owner must establish all four parts of the traditional test for permanent injunctive relief: “(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.”

Beyond the technology: protecting value in AI contracts

By Natasha Maric on August 5, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property, Technology

AI is increasingly being embedded across almost every part of an organisation. From software development and customer service to marketing and product innovation, organisations are investing heavily in, and becoming heavily reliant on, AI tools and systems.

But as AI adoption grows, so does a familiar pattern: the most valuable assets are often not the technology itself rather the real value lies in the underlying data, know-how, business intelligence and outputs that flow into and from AI systems. However, many AI systems are still being procured using contractual frameworks designed for traditional software or SaaS. As a result, organisations can overlook provisions or issues that have a significant impact on the value they ultimately derive from their AI investments.

In that context, key areas that deserve particular attention when reviewing and negotiating AI contracts include:

Not a fan of shortcuts? Judge Stoll’s Dissent Keeps Egyptian Goddess’s Three-Way Analytical Framework Alive

By Alex Wolcott and Chris Lewis on July 29, 2026 Posted in Designs, Intellectual Property, Patents

On July 22, 2026, the Federal Circuit handed down a nonprecedential yet strategically important decision in Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. v. The Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex A, affirming a district court’s reversal of a preliminary injunction in a design patent “Schedule A” case involving foldable fans sold on Amazon and Temu. The case is a useful guide into how later-issued design patents can complicate and undermine a design patent holder’s claim for preliminary injunctive relief.

New restriction to telephone canvassing in France

By Stéphanie Faber on July 21, 2026 Posted in Advertising, Data Protection, France, Marketing, Telecoms

From 11 August 2026, the prior consent of all individuals in France will be required for any telephone marketing from any caller regardless of the sector.

Under the Law n° 2025-594 of 30 June 2025 on “Combating All Forms of Fraud Involving Public Aid”, telephone canvassing of individuals (whether carried out directly or through a third party) is prohibited unless the organisation has first obtained the individual’s prior consent.

In order to obtain consent, the caller must be able to demonstrate that it has obtained a valid consent. In so doing, the requirements for obtaining consent are those of GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), i.e. it must be free, specific, informed, unambiguous and revocable.

The consumer’s explicit consent must therefore be obtained. In so doing, consent may be explicitly obtained during a purchase, an in-store visit or through a form, and the business must be able to provide evidence that such consent was given.

It is also prohibited to make the sale of a product or the provision of a service conditional upon the customer’s consent to telephone marketing.

How Deep is Your Fake? A 3-Minute-Guide on Labelling Obligations under the EU AI Act

By Dr. Sandra Mueller, Dr. Annette Demmel and David Naylor on July 15, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, EU Commission, Europe

The EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act requires companies to disclose in certain cases whether content has been created or modified by AI. This also applies to companies that make use of AI such as image-generation programs for product advertising.

Given that the new rules are enforceable from 2 August 2026, with fines up to EUR 15 million or 3% of global annual turnover, the importance of compliance with these rules is now in sharp focus.

The good news is that for deployers of AI systems, besides chatbot disclosure, labelling obligations only apply in two scenarios: (i) AI-generated or manipulated texts aiming at informing the public on matters of public interest, and (ii) deep fakes[1].

Looking at all of this in more detail, what does this mean to companies that create and/or publish advertising and promotional content?

Will businesses be taxed for using AI? Robot, token and floating point operations (FLOP) taxes explained

By David Naylor, David Nisbet, Uzma Chaudhry and Matthew Giles on July 9, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Europe

As AI systems continue to be adopted at scale, they are increasingly performing tasks carried out by human employees. From drafting documents, to writing code, to handling customer queries and concerns have grown about the economic risks this shift may pose, including job displacement and the erosion of the income taxes generated by human labour.

This rapid automation of roles raises difficult questions around labour displacement, reduction and redeployment. A direct economic consequence of this is the growing fiscal pressure that governments may face due to loss of income tax. This has renewed interest in proposals for a robot tax, alongside the emergence of AI policy research on alternatives such as token tax and FLOP tax, each targeting a different point in the AI value chain: labour displacement, AI-driven usage and compute power.

Bullseye: Luke Littler is successful in securing a facial trade mark registration

By Carlton Daniel, Paul Jinks and Kerry Lee on July 8, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Trade Mark, UK, Uncategorized

In March 2026 the darts phenomenon and reigning World Champion, Luke Littler, applied to the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to register his face as a trade mark in the UK across a variety of different categories [From the Oche to the IPO: can a face function as a trade mark? | Global IP & Technology Law Blog].

IPO records now show that Mr Littler’s company’s application was successful with a direct, photorealistic likeness of Mr Littler having been registered as a trade mark on 19 June 2026 for 11 different classes of goods and services [UK Intellectual Property Office trade mark number UK00004350490].

Mr Littler thereby joins a growing list of literally famous (or rather, distinctive) faces who have successfully secured trade mark registration in the UK for a general/generic photorealistic likeness of themselves, including the footballer Cole Palmer and television presenter Jeremy Clarkson. Trade mark filing practice has expanded beyond the more stylised images that were historically used to secure successful trade mark applications.

Narrowly claimed, broadly disclosed: When patent claims mean exactly what they say

By Alex Wolcott on July 7, 2026 Posted in Patents, US

In a short but instructive opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit delivered a reminder about the relationship between claim language, written descriptions and the limits of what a patent’s claims can cover. Dynapass owns U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658, covering methods for authenticating users on a secure computer network using a two-component credential: a passcode that the user knows, and a token that the user receives via cell phone. The key idea is that these two pieces are combined into a single password, which the user then submits to receive access. This security protocol is of a form frequently referred to as “multi-factor authentication” (MFA).

From quill to code: George Washington debates the patent future of artificial intelligence on America’s 250th birthday

By Christopher Adams, Tommy Andrews, Frank Bernstein, Caren Street and Anna Fraser on July 6, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property, Patents, Technology, Uncategorized, USPTO

As America celebrates its 250th year, the pulse of innovation that animated the Founders beats louder than ever. From the first patent debates to today’s courtroom clashes over artificial intelligence, George Washington’s legacy as a mill owner, pragmatic leader, and founding architect of the U.S. patent system remains strikingly relevant. Drawing on Washington’s own letters and historic drive for progress, we confront a question that now defines our technological era: When a machine surpasses its maker, who gets to claim the spark of invention, the human or the machine?

Imagine a frosty December morning in 1790 in Philadelphia. President George Washington—equal parts statesman, tinkerer, and entrepreneur—stands before Oliver Evans’ astonishing automaton. This isn’t just another machine: it’s an engineering leap, grinding grain into superfine flour at a speed no human crew could match, demanding barely a touch from its operators. When Washington signs the third U.S. patent for the Evans system, he’s not just endorsing invention—he’s witnessing a technological revolution poised to transform his own fortunes and the young nation’s future.