Publication
Judicial Review: what do you need to know?
Judicial review allows a party to challenge the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.
The New York Commercial Division recently updated its procedural rules in two material respects: to reinforce its position as a go-to venue for technology-related litigation and to encourage the resolution of commercial disputes by the use of extrajudicial referees to hear and determine such disputes. These amendments, which became effective Feb. 14, 2024, highlight existing capabilities of the Commercial Division and aim at strengthening the jurisdiction’s attractiveness for complex business disputes.
Following a period of public comment in the fall of 2023, Chief Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas signed Administrative Order AO/77/24, amending Section 202.70 of the Uniform Rules for the Supreme and County Courts(Rules of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court) by introducing an amendment to Section 202.70(b)(1)(technology disputes) and a new Rule 9-b to Section 202.70(g) (referees). 22 NYCRR §202.70(b)(1) and §202.70(g).
While these additions constitute welcome reminders of the Commercial Division’s jurisdiction over technology-related disputes and the existence of procedures to appoint extrajudicial referees, they do not directly impose any significant changes to the practice before the Commercial Division.
Read the full New York Law Journal article, "Commercial division update: Updated rules for New York’s Commercial Division: Technology disputes and use of referees."
Publication
Judicial review allows a party to challenge the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.
Publication
Welcome to the Q3 2024 edition of the Norton Rose Fulbright International Restructuring Newswire.
Publication
The English Court of Appeal has decided that an artificial neural network (ANN) was not patentable in Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks v Emotional Perception AI Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 825 reversing the finding of the lower court (the High Court), and in so doing agreeing with the UK Intellectual Property Office’s (IPO) original rejection of the patent application on the basis of unpatentable subject matter.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023