2024 has proven to be a busy one for intellectual property (IP) law in the United Kingdom, evidenced by a number of significant judicial decisions across a range of sectors, from trade marks to patents and AI-related copyright issues. Some rulings have provided clarity on important legal principles, while others have opened the door to ongoing developments that will shape the future of IP law. This review highlights some of the most important IP cases and legislative changes of 2024 and offers insights into the key issues expected to dominate the IP legal landscape in 2025.
IP Highlights – 2024
1. Sky v SkyKick
The UK Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in the Sky v SkyKick case, ruling that Sky had applied for overly broad trade marks in bad faith. This decision clarified that trade marks should reflect genuine intent to use, aiming to curb the practice of ‘evergreening,’ where companies file for excessively wide trade marks to stifle competition. This ruling underscores the importance of specificity and fairness in trade mark applications.
2. Lifestyle Equities v Amazon UK
In another significant Supreme Court case, Lifestyle Equities challenged Amazon over the sale of third-party goods using their UK trade marks. The court ruled that Amazon’s U.S. website was “targeting” UK consumers, even though it operated outside the UK, due to various factors including the use of terminology including "Delivers to the United Kingdom" and other UK-specific language. The judgment has wide implications for online trade mark infringement, especially for companies selling across borders, and may impact how online platforms manage cross-jurisdictional marketing.
3. Lidl v Tesco
In the Lidl v Tesco case, the Court of Appeal found that Tesco’s use of a yellow circle on a blue background infringed Lidl’s trade mark and constituted passing off. The court found that Tesco's signage could mislead consumers into believing that Tesco's prices were matched with Lidl's, thereby taking unfair advantage of Lidl's brand reputation. The ruling reinforced the need for companies to avoid misleading consumers through confusing branding.
4. Thatchers Cider v Aldi
In a ruling from the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), Thatchers Cider lost its case against Aldi regarding trade mark infringement over similar packaging of a lemon cider. The court found that despite visual similarities, there was no likelihood of consumer confusion, highlighting the importance of distinguishing product branding in trade mark disputes. This decision has, however, been appealed with the decision due in early 2025.
5. Marks & Spencer v Aldi
In another key ruling in the food and drink sector, Marks & Spencer was successful in its design right infringement case against Aldi, in relation to a light-up gin bottle. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision that Aldi's version of the bottle did not create a sufficiently different overall impression to M&S bottle (in respect of which M&S held a registered design right). This decision emphasised the importance of the "overall impression" of a design and how useful design protection can be as part of a company's arsenal of IP rights.
6. Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed
In Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed, the Supreme Court ruled that company directors are not automatically liable for trade mark infringement committed by their companies unless they knew of the infringement. This case clarifies the extent of director liability in IP law, providing important guidance for those involved in corporate governance.
Copyright
7. WaterRower v Liking Ltd
The WaterRower case considered whether a rowing machine could qualify as a “work of artistic craftsmanship” under UK copyright law. The High Court ultimately ruled that it did not meet the necessary criteria for such protection, focusing on the functional aspects of the product rather than its aesthetic qualities. This case further clarified the boundaries of copyright protection for functional objects, and highlights the difficulty of securing copyright protection for functional items, even when they exhibit aesthetic qualities
Patents
8. Pfizer v Moderna
One of the most significant patent cases of 2024 involved Pfizer and Moderna, who were in a legal battle over patents related to their COVID-19 vaccines. The High Court ruled that Pfizer’s vaccine infringed one of Moderna’s patents, but also found another of Moderna's patents to be invalid. With an appeal pending, the case could have broader implications for the patentability of mRNA technologies and their commercialisation. This case will continue to unfold in 2025 and may influence future patent disputes in the pharmaceutical industry.
FRAND Patents
This year saw a series of important rulings on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) patents, especially in relation to the telecommunications and tech industries. These judgments will continue to shape the way FRAND disputes are handled in the UK.
IP and AI
The growing intersection of IP law and artificial intelligence (AI) was a major focus in 2024. The European Union passed the EU AI Act, which includes provisions relating to copyright, especially regarding generative AI. The Act mandates that AI providers comply with copyright laws and ensure transparency in their training data. Although no specific AI legislation has been introduced in the UK yet, there are clear indications that the UK Government will look to introduce some level of regulation in this area. We wrote previously on the differences in approach being taken by the UK and EU to the regulation of AI – see here.
9. Emotional Perception AI Case
The Emotional Perception AI case made headlines when the UKIPO initially rejected a patent application for an AI system utilising neural networks to recommend media based on emotional similarity, classifying the invention as a computer program (which are excluded from patentability under Section 1(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988). The High Court overturned this decision (finding that the invention was not a computer program as such), but in July 2024, the Court of Appeal reinstated the UKIPO’s original refusal. The UK Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal, and the case could have significant implications for patent law in the AI space, particularly regarding the patentability of AI-driven inventions.
What Lies Ahead in 2025?
1. Emotional Perception AI Supreme Court Decision
The upcoming decision from the UK Supreme Court on the Emotional Perception AI case will be pivotal for AI patent law in the UK. The case will address critical issues regarding the patentability of AI systems and could set a precedent for future AI patent applications.
2. Pfizer v Moderna – Appeal Outcome
The Pfizer v Moderna case will continue to develop in 2025. The Court of Appeal will likely render its judgment on key issues, particularly the validity of Moderna's patents. This ruling could have significant implications for the global pharmaceutical industry and the development of mRNA vaccines.
3. Government Consultation on IP and AI
The UK government is currently conducting a consultation on AI and IP, with potential changes to copyright law, particularly in relation to data scraping and text and data mining. Amongst other things, the Government has, in the consultation, signalled its preference for the removal of the protection for computer-generated works under section 9(3) of the 1988 Act. These changes could have a profound effect on how AI companies handle IP, and could signal a major overhaul of the UK's IP laws. The outcome of this consultation is therefore eagerly awaited.
4. EU AI Act Implementation and UK Response
As the EU AI Act continues to roll out, there may be similar legislation in the UK, potentially influencing AI regulation and its impact on IP. This is an area to watch closely, especially as generative AI technologies continue to evolve.
5. Getty Images v Stability AI
The appeal in the Getty Images v Stability AI case will be heard in 2025, which will address the legality of using copyrighted materials to train AI models. This case could have far-reaching implications for copyright law and AI, particularly in terms of data scraping and the use of online content for AI training. The case will also consider database right infringement by AI, and how database rights apply in the context of generative AI tools. We also expect to see further cases to emerge in relation to AI and IP infringement.
6. Changes to Supplementary Protection Certificate Regime
The law on how medicines for human use are authorised in the UK will change. The Supplementary Protection Certificates (Amendments Relating to the Windsor Framework) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024/1075) come into force on 1 January 2025, bringing updates to the SPC Regulation to account for changes brought about by the "Windsor Framework" (following which only a single marketing authorisation for the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland, will be required).
Conclusion
The landscape of intellectual property law in the United Kingdom has evolved significantly in 2024, with important rulings that have provided greater clarity on several complex issues. As we look ahead to 2025, the convergence of AI technology and IP law will remain a focal point, particularly in relation to the patentability of AI-driven inventions and the application of copyright law to generative AI. The developments in these areas will likely shape the future of IP law, and stakeholders across various industries will need to stay informed and adaptable to navigate these changes effectively.
Contributors
Partner
Associate
