Tech Disputes Network (TDN) – Need to Know Basis

This week’s podcast is about is about one of the many ways in which AI is changing the way in which disputes lawyers work. Automated chronologies, which broadly means the process of automated classification, chronological ordering and intuitive presentation of matter-related documents, is a great illustrative example of how the much-hyped lawtech revolution is playing out in practice. 

While the headlines often focus only on the distant and speculative potential of AI to in effect replace lawyers, the real-world reality is typically less grandiose, more helpful and, notwithstanding the aura of robotic impenetrability that sometimes surrounds AI, particularly good at making complicated things simpler and more digestible for people. While the singularity is nowhere near, the end of a lot of the more tedious litigation tasks, and the start of a more intuitive, collaborative and potentially enjoyable process for disputes professionals appears much closer at hand, ushered in by applications that, for example, help visualise a case as the kind of chronological narrative that all people, lawyers included, inevitably use to make sense of the world. 

To present this podcast we are pleased to welcome Sophie Broch, who was an experienced commercial disputes lawyer at a number of very well-known firms and who is now the Head of Litigation solutions at litigate.ai. Litigate are a company at the forefront of lawtech innovation, providing an operating system made for the specific purpose of making litigators lives easier via various innovative and practical applications of AI. 

This podcast is about the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Unwired Planet International and others v Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd and others [UKSC 2018/0214].

The judgment decided a number of issues, including whether the English court has jurisdiction to grant injunctions restraining infringement of UK patents of major importance to the telecommunications industry if the infringing party refuses to enter into a global license of a patent portfolio at rates determined by the English court, whether England was on the facts of the case the appropriate forum to determine the dispute, and whether an injunction should have been refused on the basis of alleged non-compliance with mandatory guidance in the CJEU decision in Huawei v ZTE. 

This podcast focuses principally on the determination of the Supreme Court on the issue of the jurisdiction of the English courts, which it determined do indeed have jurisdiction to unilaterally set the terms of global intellectual property licenses on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (or FRAND) terms, which are terms of considerable commercial significance within telecommunications and other technical industries operating in an international context. The confirmation provided by the Supreme Court that the English courts have jurisdiction to determine the terms of FRAND licences on a global and not simply a national basis may have potential to make the UK a hotspot for determination of IP disputes in this area moving forward, and hence may be of significance to parties operating in telecoms and other technical industries, as well as to their advisors.

This podcast is presented by Mike Cumming-Bruce, who is one of the founders of the TDN and a senior associate at Cooke, Young & Keidan. If further information regarding either the issues in the podcast or the TDN more generally would be useful, please feel free to reach out to Mike by email to [email protected]. 

We are very pleased to welcome Matthew McGhee of Twenty Essex to present this week’s episode of the Tech Dispute Network’s ‘Need to Know Basis’ podcast series on payments frauds. You can find the podcast here: https://disputes.tech/podcasts/

Payment fraud has become a regular feature in the news, and regrettably the current circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic have only increased the prevalence of this fraud. The perpetrators have become both ever more brazen and ever more sophisticated in their attempts to trick their victims into paying sometimes very large sums of money to an account that they, the fraudster, control. The profile of victims ranges from individuals dealing with their personal bank accounts, right the way through to multi-national companies whose losses to these frauds can be counted in the millions. Although it is possible to track down the fraudster responsible, this is not always a feasible option – often due to the likely expense of doing so. Therefore a person who has been tricked into paying the fraudster instead of the person they intended to pay may often look to see whether they can blame the intended payee for the fraud.

To discuss these issues, we are joined today by Matthew McGhee, a barrister at Twenty Essex. Matthew has direct experience of cases where counterparties blame each other for these sorts of frauds and will be discussing how the blame game between the parties should be settled. He drew on this experience, together with other cases of cyber fraud, in publishing ‘A Practical Guide to Cyber Fraud Litigation’ earlier this year and is often asked to advise or act in such cases.

We are very pleased to welcome Sam Roberts of Cooke, Young & Keidan, to present the fifth episode of the Tech Dispute Network’s ‘Need to Know Basis’ podcast series on the issue of the Wirecard accounting scandal. You can find the podcast here: https://disputes.tech/podcasts/

This series of podcasts aims to provide the key points on the most important cases and developments with a tech angle via short, digestible podcasts, presented by the leading experts in the field. You can find the podcasts at disputes.tech, as well as on Spotify and iTunes. 

Wirecard, once a darling of the Fintech world and a rare example of a European champion in the sector, caused shockwaves around the financial world when it collapsed amidst an enormous accounting scandal in June 2020. Although the details are still unravelling, it appears that at the scandal’s heart was fraudulently inflated profits, falsified contracts and nearly EUR 2 billion in missing cash.

Sam Roberts is a Senior Associate and Solicitor Advocate at CYK specialising in Fintech disputes. Sam is a co-founder of the Tech Disputes Network and a regular contributor to industry and legal publications on technology and law.

We very much hope you enjoy this week’s podcast and thank you for your continued support of the TDN: if you would like to join the Network and ensure you receive details of our events and future podcasts, please click here.  You can also follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn to keep up with the latest news on tech-related disputes.

We are very pleased to welcome Terence Bergin QC and Quentin Tannock, both of 4 Pump Court, to present the fourth episode of the Tech Dispute Network’s ‘Need to Know Basis’ podcast series on the issue of explaining AI, with specific reference to processing personal data in light of recent guidance published by the Information Commissioner's Office on this issue. You can find the podcast here: https://disputes.tech/podcasts/

This series of podcasts aims to provide the key points on the most important cases and developments with a tech angle via short, digestible podcasts, presented by the leading experts in the field. You can find the podcasts at disputes.tech, as well as on Spotify and iTunes. 

AI systems, however otherworldly their brilliance may appear, are of course all built by developers with human fallibilities that are liable to be reflected in the systems they design and build. However, many forms of AI, in particular the in influential fields of machine learning and its sub-field of deep learning, are often notoriously resistant to permitting clear explanations of how the AI system came to a particular result. As autonomous decision-making becomes more and more mainstream, the potential danger is that an ever-increasing amount of the decisions in our day to day lives are liable to be taken by computer systems whose decision-making processes may be very hard or even impossible to interrogate in conventional ways.

Terence Bergin QC is one of the country’s pre-eminent tech disputes practitioners and has appeared in many of the most important cases relating to the supply of computer systems over the past 20 years, was twice awarded Chambers & Partners IT Junior of the Year before taking silk, and, together with Quentin, he has recently published on the subject of explaining AI. Quentin Tannock's past lives have included turns as a solicitor, a venture capital executive, and teaching at Cambridge University. He has a broad commercial practice, and particular expertise in tech and contentious IP, in which areas he may be among the most technologically-knowledgeable juniors at the bar.

We very much hope you enjoy this week’s podcast and thank you for your continued support of the TDN: if you’d like to join the Network and ensure you receive details of our events and future podcasts, please click here.  You can also follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn to keep up with the latest news on tech-related disputes.

We are very pleased to welcome Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Commercial, part of The 36 Group to present the third episode of the Tech Dispute Network’s ‘Need to Know Basis’ podcast series on the implications for international data transfers of the recent CJEU decision in the well-known case, Schrems. 

Many businesses rely on the ability to send customers’ personal data overseas in order to provide their services. However, the decision of the CJEU, which, in the words of the UK ICO has “wider implications than just the invalidation of the EU-US Privacy Shield”, means that these businesses should take another look at the arrangements they have in place.

Paul Schwartfeger is a domain expert on emerging technologies and has a particular interest in the interplay between technology and rights. He writes and advises businesses on various solutions in this space including blockchain, crypto, biometrics, AI and the Internet of Things. 

The 'Need to Know Basis’ podcast series aims to provide the key points on the most important cases and developments with a tech angle via short podcasts of approximately 15 minutes in length, presented by the leading experts in the field. You can find the podcasts at disputes.tech, as well as on Spotify and iTunes. 

This podcast concerns liability issues related to autonomous vehicles. Liability issues related to the output of various forms of AI are arguably among the most significant challenges currently facing lawyers, and no specific area is more of immediate relevance than that of driverless cars. For over a century, driving has been one of the world’s leading sources of both employment and accidents, profoundly affecting both society and the law. Indeed, the business of determining responsibility for the damage caused by driver mishaps may very well be the most common public point of contact with the world of civil disputes. However, as technology pushes people out of the driver’s seat, new ways of looking at motoring liability will be required. We are very fortunate to have Lucy McCormick of Henderson chambers to guide us through the key issues here. One of the bar’s most sought-after juniors for technology work, Lucy is also leading expert in this field, about which she has lectured extensively and authored a textbook for practitioners. 

This podcast concerns the issue of patent infringement on the grounds of public interest, considered in light of two recent High Court decisions, Ipcom v Vodafone and Evalve v Edwards. In addition to being of importance to IP practitioners, the issue of patent infringement on the grounds of public interest may have, for example, potential to be of interest to policymakers and others in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, which might provide a motive for patent infringement in relation to novel, expensive and scarce pharmaceutical products. This podcast is presented by Michael Silverleaf QC of 11 South Square. Michael is one of the country's leading IP silks and has appeared in a large number of leading patent cases over the course of the last three decades, in addition to acting as Treasury counsel on patents-related matters for many years.