ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø

View the related practice notes about Estoppel

US—patents fundamentals—the America Invents Act

US—patents fundamentals—the America Invents Act This Practice Note was originally written for Lexis Practice Advisor®, in the US. This Practice Note provides an introduction to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which is the first major overhaul of the US patent system since the Patent Act of 1952. It converts the US patent system from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system for patents with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. A first-to-file system awards the patent to the inventor who first files the application, as opposed to the inventor who first reduces the invention to practice. This encourages prompt application filings and in most cases eliminates the need to resolve disputes as to who is the first inventor. Moving to a first-to-file system also harmonizes the US patent system with foreign patent systems, which are nearly all first-to-file. In addition to switching to the first-to-file system, the AIA also: • expanded the procedures available in the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for patent...

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements This Practice Note considers exclusive jurisdiction agreements (also known as choice of court agreements). Specific considerations as to the construction, effect and enforcement of this type of jurisdiction agreements are discussed. For guidance on: • non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements • asymmetric jurisdiction clauses, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—asymmetric jurisdiction agreements What is an exclusive jurisdiction clause? An exclusive jurisdiction clause or agreement, provides for the courts in a specified jurisdiction to hear disputes between the parties; it creates a contractual right not to be sued elsewhere. A number of exclusive jurisdiction clauses also include forum non conveniens waivers, ie the parties irrevocably waiver any right to bringing proceedings in a jurisdiction other than that stipulated in the jurisdiction clause. Exclusive jurisdiction clauses differ from non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses in that they exclude the rights of the parties to commence proceedings in a different jurisdiction to that provided for in the jurisdiction clause. For example exclusive jurisdiction clauses, see Practice...

View the related precedents about Estoppel

Cohabitant claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996—client guide

Cohabitant claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996—client guide This document provides general guidance regarding the property rights of cohabitants and claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Your family lawyer will be able to provide specific advice based on your circumstances. Who can apply? Cohabitants do not have the same rights to make property claims as married couples or civil partners. Instead, disputes between cohabitants regarding their interests in a property are determined in accordance with the law of trusts. The 'common law' wife or husband does not exist in law, and claims by cohabitants are very limited in comparison with spouses or civil partners. In some circumstances it may be possible to make a claim on behalf of a child (see: Financial arrangements for children—client guide). There are two main ways in which a cohabitant may have an interest in a property: • as a joint owner, or • where the property is in the...

Agreement to suspend limitation—standstill agreement

Agreement to suspend limitation—standstill agreement This Agreement is dated [insert day] of [insert month] 20[insert year] Parties 1 [Insert full name and address of individual or company name, number and address of registered office] (Party A) 2 [Insert full name and address of individual or company name, number and address of registered office] (Party B) each a ‘Party’ and together the ‘Parties’ The parties agree: 1 Definitions and Interpretation Dispute • means any claim arising out of or connected with [Insert description of the dispute/circumstances giving rise to the dispute]. Proceedings • means court proceedings in England and Wales and any arbitration in relation to the Dispute. Period of Suspension • means the period which begins on the date of this Agreement and continues until it is terminated in accordance with clause 3. 1.1 Save where the context otherwise requires, in this Agreement: 1.1.1 words in the singular include the plural and vice versa; 1.1.2 reference to one gender includes a reference to the other genders; 1.1.3 any...

View the related q&as about Estoppel

If a beneficial joint tenancy is severed, is it possible to establish an unequal division of the beneficial interest either at the time of severance or over the course of subsequent dealings?

If a beneficial joint tenancy is severed, is it possible to establish an unequal division of the beneficial interest either at the time of severance or over the course of subsequent dealings? Severance is the mechanism by which the beneficial ownership of property is divided into shares. An express declaration of a beneficial joint tenancy results in the joint tenants being given equal shares if the joint tenancy is severed (see Goodman v Gallant and Fantini v Scrutton. Where the property was transferred to joint owners without any express declaration of trust, there is a presumption that a beneficial joint tenancy was intended and that on severance each joint

View the related News about Estoppel

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—1 May 2025

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the 11th edition of the King’s Bench Guide and the Court of Appeal decision in Freeman v Home Farm Ellingham Ltd (specific performance); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

Where there's no waiver, there's no way (Barclays Bank plc v VEB.RF)

Commercial analysis: The English High Court has provided further guidance on the interpretation of ‘no waiver’ clauses in a recent decision. The backdrop to this decision was a sanctions related dispute about the termination of a currency swap agreement between two banks, one of which was Russian, the other English. The agreement had a dispute resolution clause where the forum was arbitration unless the English bank gave notice that a dispute should be heard by the English courts. Pamela Vassil, lawyer at A&O Shearman, examines the court’s decision.