In a judgment handed down by the UK Court of Appeal on 21 December 2021 ([2021] EWCA Civ 1952, available here), Walter Soriano, the claimant, was granted his cross-appeal, giving him permission to serve Forensic News LLC and four other defendants in the United States with proceedings under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The appeal came from the High Court, which had previously refused such permission on the basis that the claimant could not demonstrate that the claim satisfied the test for serving claims outside the jurisdiction. The reason given by the High Court was that the processing of the claimant’s personal data did not fall within the territorial scope of the GDPR. The Court of Appeal therefore revisited the GDPR’s territorial scope as part of this appeal and decided the claimant had an arguable case and could therefore serve the claim outside the jurisdiction.
Continue Reading UK’s Court of Appeal assesses territorial scope of GDPR
UK Court of Appeal rules AI is not an inventor
AI is a hot topic, particularly in the area of patent law and inventorship.
On Tuesday 21 September 2021, the UK Court of Appeal ruled that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent application (Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks and Designs [2021] EWCA Civ 1374).
Background
The present case related to two patent applications submitted to the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) by Dr Stephen Thaler. Both applications listed the inventor as ‘DABUS’, an AI machine built for the purpose of inventing, which had successfully come up with two patentable inventions. The UK IPO had refused to process either application (considering them withdrawn) as they failed to comply with the requirement to list an inventor and Dr Thaler was not entitled to apply for the patents. According to the Patents Act 1977, an inventor must be a ‘person’.
At the Court of First Instance, Mr. Justice Marcus Smith had upheld the IPO’s decision.Continue Reading UK Court of Appeal rules AI is not an inventor
Defamation and Data Protection: a twin-barrelled approach to claims against publishers
In the recent case of Prince Moulay Hicham v Elaph Publishing Limited, the Court of Appeal held in a unanimous decision that a claimant could include an action under the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (‘DPA’) as an alternative means of redress.
To read our full client alert in relation to this judgment, please
Court of Appeal Confirms a Person’s Name Constitutes Personal Data
A judgment from the Court of Appeal on 7 February 2014 in the case of Edem v The information Commissioner & Financial Services Authority [2014] EWCA Civ 92, has held that “a name is personal data unless it is so common that without further information, such as its use in a work context, a
California Courts Limit Liability for Lost Medical Information
This post was also written by Joshua B. Marker.
A panel of the Court of Appeal limited the private right of action under the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Civil Code § 56 et seq. (“CMIA”), holding that alleging negligent maintenance and loss of possession of confidential information is insufficient to state a cause
UK Court of Appeal limits typical damages for a data protection breach to £751
This post was written by Cynthia O’Donoghue.
The UK Civil Division of the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of an individual data subject on the point of damages under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), but limited the award to £751 GBP. The judgment in Halliday v. Creation Consumer Finance Limited, [2013]