+44 207 488 9947
News 2024
Practice Area: AI & Data Science – Computer Science – Mathematics – Emerging Technologies, December 2024
Amazing Team of University Education Lawyers Winning Academic Appeal AI, Computer Science & Data Science Cases. Our leading university education lawyers have consistently achieved excellent outcomes in advising students through university academic appeals in computer science and mathematics related modules, including representing students before panels and committees.
Our AI academic lawyers have AI knowledge and experience in winning AI academic appeal cases especially as a growing number of university degree programmes are integrating data & AI subjects as core modules. Our academic lawyers will draft your academic appeal or provide advice whether you are a full time computer science or mathematics student, or studying related disciplines as part of your degree.
Recently, the Court of Appeal judgment in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council (Churchill) decided a pivotal case, altering the landscape of Alternative Dispute Resolution (‘ADR’) in England and Wales. The case clarified the legal boundaries of court-ordered ADR, confirming that courts can mandate participation in ADR without infringing on the right to a fair trial. This judgment has since led to important changes in the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’), which came into force on 01 October 2024, embedding ADR as a key aspect of civil justice.
Testimonial : Manufacturing Engineering, November 2024
Engineering - Manufacturing Engineering
Year 3 manufacturing engineering student accused of academic misconduct by the university. The student had submitted an academic appeal against the allegations of academic misconduct and attended a hearing prior to instructing RT Coopers. The appeal drafted by the student was rejected. The case was referred to a misconduct committee. RT Coopers drafted the statement for the hearing before the misconduct committee and represented the student at the misconduct hearing. The student denied any wrongdoings. The student received a fair outcome in light of the seriousness of the allegations. The student will be resuming engineering studies.
‘There are no words to describe the level of care and commitment that Dr Cooper has put in my case. My only regret is that I did not approach Dr Cooper sooner in my case. I came to her during a very dark period of my life. Her guidance over the next one year has been crucial in helping me regain confidence in my case. I have previously assumed that my case was too hopeless, unique and niche for any professional to come in and scoop it up, but Dr Cooper’s wide and extensive experience has surprised me. When I worked with her, I soon realised that she had dealt with so many cases of varying severity and complexity, that she is able to invent a new angle to tackle my case, no matter how hopeless or dark my case was. I soon realise, like many others who have had complicated cases and triumphed, I too will get my case resolved – it is just a matter of time.
Her understanding of university and legal processes goes beyond the black-and-white. She has such a shocking amount of extensive experience, that she is very likely to have had dealings with the specific organizations within each University that handle cases and appeals. This was extremely helpful in crafting an appropriate strategy that delivers well, and in providing advice on how to tackle cases, by referring to past precedents.
In some cases, a large component also involves the performance of the students/clients themselves, as mandated by Universities. In this regard, Dr Cooper does not cut corners. She has prepared me until I am 100% ready and confident, and can perform to the best of your abilities. I was shocked at how many hours she had pulled to get me 100% ready. In terms of submitting documents and appeals, she has burned the midnight oil to ensure that every corner is argued for.
Anyone who has been through a formal process with the University will tell you that it is soul-crushing and draining, with no end in sight. The day you look forward to getting your desired outcome and being free of all these chains is a far one. It feels that you are just another case in the University’s eyes, with no consideration of how that will impact your career, your life trajectory, and the mental well-being of you and your loved ones. During this troubling time, I am so thankful to have found Dr Cooper as an ally. She is firm in her work and presentation, which is extremely advantageous when dealing with formal processes with Universities. She also has an extraordinary amount of compassion - she listened to every one of my concerns, taking the time to discuss them with me. During her discussions, I find that she is always thinking in my best interests – she does not treat me just like another case (which Universities do), but rather a whole human being with aspirations, plans and emotions of my own...' Douglas
Testimonial : MPharm, September 2024
Second year Masters of Pharmacy programme (‘MPharm’) student excluded from programme due to failure of OSCE resit - first appeal was unsuccessful - RT Coopers were instructed after the rejection of the first appeal to draft the Review against the decision of the University (‘Review’) - RT Coopers drafted the Review – The University refused to accept or consider the Review – RT Coopers drafted a Complaint to the OIA – The OIA upheld the complaint was justified. First published in Google Business Profile Reviews
‘I had the privilege of working with Dr. Rosanna Cooper during a particularly challenging time in my academic journey as an MPharm student. After failing the OSCE exam due to not being given a fair reasonable adjustment, my Extenuating Circumstances (EC) claim and Stage One academic appeal were unjustly denied. To make matters worse, my request for a review at Stage Two was also refused by the university, leaving me feeling hopeless and unfairly treated. However, Dr. Cooper’s exceptional guidance and expertise made all the difference.
On 2nd July 2024, a High court judge issued a mixed ruling in an ongoing patent infringementcase between competing developers of Covid-19 vaccines Moderna, Pfizer and BioNTech. Thepharmaceutical giant Pfizer along with its partner manufacturer BioNTech have been embroiledin conflict with vaccine producer Moderna, concerning the use of messenger RNA (‘mRNA’)technology in Covid-19 vaccines.
Daniella Corbin
The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has recently re-released its guidance on examining patent applications concerning Artificial Intelligence (AI) inventions. The guidance followed the ruling of the High Court trademark case of Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs, November 2023. In the Emotional Perception AI case, a UKIPO hearing officer refused a patent application for an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) invention. The hearing officer argued that the ANN invention was a “program for a computer” and therefore excluded under the Patents Act. The High Court disagreed with this decision, confirming that an ANN is patentable and falls outside of that exclusion.
Daniella Corbin
Emotional Perception Case
Emotional Perception AI invented a system that claimed tomake music and media recommendations to its users in anew and improved way. This was said to be possible basedon how the users were categorised by ANNs that weretrained. The claim itself considered two aspects of ANNusage: (i) the process by which ANN is trained, and (ii) theprocess of using the trained ANN.The patent application for this invention was rejected by ahearing officer of the UKIPO, who concluded that EmotionalPerception’s claimed invention was not patentable. Theofficer determined that the system created by EmotionalPerception, as a whole, was a computer program, andadditionally, its ability to provide similar filerecommendations was not “technical in nature” andbelieved it to be excluded from patentability under thePatents Act.
Legal Update/Article: Software Licensing : IBM vs LZLABS case reporting by Daniella Corbin, May 2024
In recent news, Zurich-based startup company, LZLabs is being sued for the second time by IBM, not for patent infringement like the previous 2022 Texas case between the two, but rather, for “unlawful” use of IBM's “proprietary technology.” In a statement, IBM stated that “ the case has nothing to do with restricting competition but protecting itself against the unlawful exploitation of technology that required billions of dollars of investment.” For that reason IBM wants the court to order LZLabs to stop selling its tech and forbid them and any subsidiaries from making further use of the IBM mainframe software.
Daniella Corbin
Case Study - March 2024 
Final year Biomedical
Science Student -
Academic Misconduct
Appeal Upheld
Case Study : Final year Biomedical Science student (‘our client’) excluded after three offences of Academic Misconduct. RT Coopers drafted Appeal which was Upheld by the Appeal Committee.
In year 2, our client was found guilty of academic misconduct (first offence). In the final year, our client was accused of plagiarism and collusion (second offences) and denied any wrongdoing during the investigation meeting. Our client admitted to the second offences during the hearing of the Examinations Misconduct Committee. The Committee recommended exclusion for academic misconduct treating plagiarism and collusion as two separate offences. Therefore, our client was on record as committing three offences of academic misconduct by the time RT Coopers were instructed to draft the Appeal against the exclusion. The Appeal was upheld by the Appeal Committee.
Case Study : MSc in Mental Health Nursing – Withdrawn from programme having failed placement - Academic Appeal Partially upheld - February 2024.
MSc student studying Mental Health Nursing (‘our client’) failed the Retrieval Management Placement and was withdrawn from the nursing programme. Our client lodged a preliminary stage appeal with the university which was rejected. RT Coopers were instructed to advise on the second stage appeal. In this regard, an initial consultation was held, and our client was advised on how to particularise the grounds of appeal in order to have a chance of winning the case and worked on the draft appeal with our client.
Background
Our Client started a repeat placement during COVID having failed the previous placement as the placement providers claimed that our client had not met the professional values regarding the leadership and self-reflection domains. Our client was unable to take on the role of nurse in charge having missed the handover in the previous placement and this occurred in the Retrieval Management Placement during COVID. Following the initial interview in the Retrieval Management Placement, a detailed plan of what had to be achieved was placed on the Practice Assessment Document (‘PAD’) by the Practice Education Facilitator to ensure our client got the correct support...
Links to Testimonials click here
Link to Case Studies
Related Services
- Academic Appeals
- AI & Data Science, Computer Science, Mathematics, Emerging Technologies
- Dentistry Students
- Education Law for University Students
- Extenuating Circumstances
- Fitness to Practise
- List of Universities : Successful Cases
- Medical Students
- Misconduct in Research
- Practice Area: AI & Data Science
15-12-2024 - Case Law: Churchill Case
30-11-2024 - Testimonial : Academic Misconduct
23-11-2024 - Testimonial - MPharm Student
22-09-2024 - MODERNA V. PFIZER/BIONTECH
28-08-2024 - Patents - Artificial Intelligence
05-07-2024 - Case Study : OSCE Retake
26-06-2024 - IBM vs LZLABS report by D Corbin
20-05-2024 - Case Study : Biomedical Science
14-03-2024 - Case study : MSc Nursing Student
22-02-2024 - Case Study : Accused of Plagiarism
09-11-2023 - Testimonial : MBBS Resit Failure
05-11-2023 - Case Study : MBBS Professionalism
01-11-2023 - Pre-packed Food Labelling Deadline
26-10-2023 - Case Study : MBBS withdrawal
14-10-2023
