Richall Holdings v Fitzwilliam: Malory v Cheshire Homes and the LRA 2002

Richall Holdings v Fitzwilliam, holds that Malory v Cheshire Homes is binding in relation to the Land Registration Act 2002. Newey J saw himself as bound by that decision because he could find no relevant distinction between the provisions of the Land Registration Act 1925, and the Land Registration Act 2002. There are however significant differences in the general system of registration that is established. In particular the different roles of section 20 LRA 1925, and section 29 LRA 2002 mean that Malory was not binding and indeed ought not to have been followed. In addition, the treatment of the priorities rules in Richall misinterprets section 29 LRA 2002. Finally, the decision by‐passes the rectification and indemnity provisions of schedules 4 and 8. The decision ought to be overruled.     

Investors’ Rights in (Crypto) Custodial Holdings: Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd (in Liquidation)

Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd (in Liquidation) is a landmark decision of the New Zealand High Court that considers for the first time in a comprehensive way whether cryptocurrencies are property at common law and to what extent account holders’ (interests in) cryptocurrencies are protected from the claims of the insolvent crypto‐exchange's creditors. The ruling relies on a body of case law from various common law jurisdictions and, to a significant extent, on the findings of the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce Legal Statement on Cryptoassets and Smart Contracts. In tackling complex areas of legal uncertainty, it provides an authoritative conceptual benchmark for future court decisions and normative initiatives.     

Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.: Revisiting Pre-emption for Medical Devices

The recent United States Supreme Court decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. affirmed the doctrine of pre-emption protection only for those medical devices reaching U.S. markets via the PMA (premarketing approval) process and preserved the previous Lohr v. Medtronic decision's lack of preemption protection for those medical devices marketed via the generally more abbreviated 510(k) clearance mechanism. This paper reviews the logic and faults of the Riegel decision and discusses the implications of the Riegel decision for pre-emption protection for other classes of FDA-approved medical products.     

Claim construction and the doctrine of equivalents in Amgen v Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmeda District Court decision that Transkaryotic Therapies Inc andAventis Pharmaceuticals Inc infringed Amgen's erythropoietin(EPO) patents; this decision upheld the validity of two of Amgen'sEPO patents and the infringement by Transkaryotic of three patents,including a patent that does not expire until 2015.     

A Strange Sort of Survival for Pinnel's Case: Collier v P & M J Wright (Holdings) Limited

This note discusses the decision of the Court of Appeal in Collier v P & M J Wright (Holdings) Limited , and notes that while the Court purports to uphold both the decision in Pinnel's Case and the effect of Re Selectmove , in fact, by an extension of promissory estoppel, it bypasses them.     

The ongoing design duty in Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd Casting the scope of copyright infringement even wider

The Australian Federal Court case of Universal Music AustraliaPty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd (‘Sharman’)¹is the latest in a series of peer-to-peer (P2P) filesharingcases from various jurisdictions that has found the softwaredistributor/technology provider liable for copyright infringement.² Sharman followed a few months after the groundbreaking US SupremeCourt case of MGM Studios v Grokster Ltd ³ (‘Grokster’)that had acknowledged the Sony safe harbour for technology providersbut also introduced an inducement of infringement doctrine todeal with reprehensible conduct of infringers. While both cases involved similar technology and shared a numberof similarities on the facts and legal principles⁴, a closerexamination of Sharman shows that the net of copyright infringementin P2P filesharing is cast wider than that in Grokster. The effect of Sharman is an increased burden on the technologyprovider and the potentially tremendous consequences on innovationdue to the lack of a clear safe harbour as well as the wideningof the design obligation.