Legislation to streamline gene-editing technology research is promising for innovation, but presents potential complications for IP, finds Sarah Speight.

When alleging induced infringement, the timing of the alleged acts is critical, explains MaryAnne Armstrong of Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch.

The ‘joint applicants’ approach to PCT applications would provide an elegant solution to issues of who is entitled to priority claims in PCT applications, suggests Chiara Banas of EIP.

A referral to the European Patent Office’s Enlarged Board of Appeal will determine whether post-filed data can be used to support inventive steps in patentability, as Sarah Gibbs of Appleyard Lees reports.

Small companies face the same long product cycles and upfront costs as the big players but have different IP challenges, explains Chad Shear of Fish & Richardson.

With evidence of antimicrobial resistance increasing, can innovation incentives drive pharma to fight back? Donald McNab and Mark Schuster of Marks & Clerk explore.

A pressing need for more non-invasive prenatal tests is leading to increasing IP activity and commercial interest, say Fran Salisbury and Alice Jefferies of Mewburn Ellis.

While the effort to secure greater vaccine and treatment equality via an IP waiver is admirable, it could stifle innovation and create long-term problems, say Matthew Howell and Lauren Griffin of Alston & Bird.

With the significant growth of cannabinoid IP in the past few years, eyes are now on the emerging psychedelics market as the next frontier for IP protection. Gretchen Temeles of Hiller and Timothy Schlidt of Palo Santo Ventures discuss the issues.

The global pandemic has increased collaboration and a new wave of disputes is likely. Arbitration is well placed to help, argue Kate Davies McGill, Gaela Gehring Flores and Paul Keller of Allen & Overy.