Candidate number: C2099306
Student Number:0385012
Balancing Creativity and Innovation: A Critical Analysis of Intellectual Property Issues in AI
under UK Law
Introduction
The UK government's commitment to become leaders in a pro-tech digital economy
underscores its mission to balance innovation in using artificial intelligence (AI) while
ensuring intellectual property (IP) laws protect human creativity. This report critically
examines how UK copyright and patent legislation strike a balance between promoting
technical innovation and safeguarding human creativity in the era of digital economy.
Particular focus is placed on the legal and commercial implications of Thaler v Comptroller-
General of Patents1, Designs and Trademarks and the broader challenge of protecting AI-
generated works under UK IP law. The report further explores opportunities for post-Brexit
reform to position the UK as a global leader in AI and IP governance.
Assessing the Adequacy of UK Copyright Law in Safeguarding Human Creativity and
Encouraging AI Innovation
The legal and financial obstacles associated with protecting computer-generated works
(CGWs) under UK copyright law are highly substantial. According to the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA)2, the author of a CGW is considered the person who made the
arrangements for its creation. This clause presents difficult issues about ownership and
authorship, especially when an AI system develops or produces a work with minimal
assistance from humans . As AI systems advance and become more independent , they are
more capable of developing works of art, music, and literature without significant human
input3. This raises concerns regarding who should be given the credit for creating the works
produced. The lack of explicit guidelines in the CDPA regarding such situations raises the
possibility of legal uncertainties and disputes over ownership and rights problems.
Authorship and Ownership: The Limits of Current Copyright Frameworks;
CDPA Section 9(3)4: This section states that the person who makes the preparations for a
CGW's creation is its creator. This might not sufficiently handle scenarios in which AI
produces works without direct human involvement. Case Study: Naruto v. Slater 5: The
courts held that a monkey could not have copyright over it’s self-taken photographs, this
highlights the challenges in identifying authorship for non-human creators. Establishing
authorship is important since it affects who has the copyright and can therefore regulate
1
Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents
2
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
3
T L Butler, ‘Can a Computer Be an Author? Copyright Aspects of Artificial Intelligence’ (1981)
4
Footnote (2) supra
5
Naruto v. Slater
Candidate number: C2099306
Student Number:0385012
how the work is used and exploited. Legal issues and uncertainty may arise if the law fails to
acknowledge the true founders of AI. When an AI system composes music, for instance, who
should be credited as the author— the AI, the user, or the programmer?
Implications of AI Evolution
With the advancement of AI technology, the traditional concepts of authorship and
originality are under greater pressure. Abdikhakimov (2023) 6 notes that, ownership and
rights issues have arisen because the current legal framework is under-equipped to address
the nuances of works created by artificial intelligence. Hence, works generated by AI, for
instance, may not be easily categorizable in terms of authorship and originality, hence
troubling the tenets of copyright law. This is the primary issue associated with the use of AI
in creating collections similar to human created works. If artificial intelligence produced art
with a high artistic value, should it be protected in the same way as a work made by a
human creator?7
Legal and Commercial Challenges in Text and Data Mining
Hassani et al (2020)8 asserts that the development of AI applications requires extensive
usage of text and data mining. However, there are certain limitations placed on innovation
in one way or the other by the existing copyright legislations. The present state of TDM
involves extracting meaningful information from large datasets—which may contain
copyrighted data— that is particular to a query. These are crucial tasks for AI training in
order to ensure the accuracy of the analyses and forecasts. But many researchers and
developers face a significant obstacle while conducting TDM activities because the current
legal framework requires obtaining licences from relevant right holders9. This can lead to
increased costs and delays, impeding the progress of AI innovation.
Restrictions and Exceptions
6
I Abdikhakimov, ‘Unravelling the Copyright Conundrum: Exploring AI-Generated Content and Its Implications
for Intellectual Property Rights’ (2023) 1(5) International Conference on Legal Sciences 18. Accessed , from
http://www.science-zone.org/index.php/conference/article/view/42
7
W Y Leong, Y Z Leong and W San Leong, ‘Evolving Ethics: Adapting Principles to AI-Generated Artistic
Landscapes’ (2024) 2024 International Conference on Information Technology Research and Innovation (ICITRI)
242 (IEEE) <URL> accessed 17 February 2025.
8
Hassani H, Beneki C, Unger S, Mazinani MT, Yeganegi MR. Text mining in big data analytics. Big Data and
Cognitive Computing. 2020 Jan 16;4(1):1.
9
Cocoru D, Boehm M. An analytical review of text and data mining practices and approaches in Europe. Policy
recommendations in view off the upcoming copyright legislative proposal. 2016 May 1;1(05).
Candidate number: C2099306
Student Number:0385012
Current Law: The CDPA10 and the Database Regulations 199711 restrict TDM unless the
owners of the rights have been asked for permission. For the researchers who need the
massive datasets to feed the AI system, this creates a legal obstacle. currently, scholars can
reproduce the text and conduct data analysis under UK copyright laws. If one possesses the
legal right to do so, the right to obtain a copy of a work for computer analysis appears to be
the fundamental consumer right that these statutes seem to protect.
This exception is, however, subject to subsequent requirements:
1) Only non-commercial research should use computational analysis.
2) The copy has proper acknowledgment (unless impracticable).
The section discusses copy infringement to distribute or utilising it for purposes that aren't
allowed under the exemption. The researcher may also ask for permission from the owner
to take either course of action. Copies of the text and data analysis cannot be rented or sold.
Importantly, the clause states behaviours covered by the exceptions cannot be negated by
contracts. Any act that falls within the exemption may only be carried out under the
condition that no contractual restrictions be placed on it.Text and data analysis are the two
common exceptions to copyright law that apply to literary works; this is true for all
copyright works. Performance recordings are kept in a similar scenario.
Proposed Changes
To balance the two, specifically in terms of innovation, the UK government is currently
working to establish new exceptions which would enable TDM for any purpose.
(2012)12Suggests that the modification will ease the burdensome regulatory framework
surrounding licences, enabling adequate advancement of research into artificial intelligence
on the lower formation costs. To prevent misuse of its members works without proper
reimbursement, these modifications must consider the rights holder's positions.
Impact on Innovation
According to Bincton (2020)13, Increasing the scope of exceptions for TDM might
considerably improve the Incorporation of artificial intelligence innovation in the scientific
method. Scientists can train AI systems more quickly, leading to more significant
developments in the field. Businesses that facilitate academics' access to huge databases
make this workable for analysis. However, it is imperative to make sure that these
exclusions do not compromise the copyright protection of works, therefore giving creators
10
Footnote 2 (supra)
11
Database Regulations 1997
12
John P, Bevan S. What are policy punctuations? Large changes in the legislative agenda of the UK
Government, 1911–2008.
13
Nicolas Binctin: “TDM: A Challenge for Artificial Intelligence.” 2020;
Candidate number: C2099306
Student Number:0385012
incentives. While addressing the concerns of AI developers is undoubtedly beneficial, it
shouldn't take precedence over other people's rights. The chance to produce new works
would be uninviting if the law tilted the scales in favour of AI advancement because creators
would be afraid that their works can be used without their permission. Conversely, overly
restrictive laws could hinder AI development and hinder technological progress. 14
Assessing the Adequacy of UK Patent law in Safeguarding Human Creativity and
Encouraging AI Innovation
Many are considering the questions of creation and patentability, considering the ways UK
patent law applies to inventions developed by artificial intelligence. The UK does not yet
have a legal position for inventors who are connected to artificial intelligence, which makes
it more difficult to patent inventions that AI systems independently produce 15. The
fundamental issue is that the Patents Act 1977 16 affects the essence of the idea by stating
that an inventor must be a natural person. This requirement corresponds to the classical
conceptions of invention as a human activity. However, as AI can develop new and useful
inventions, this view is often being questioned.
Court of Appeal Decision in Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and
Trademarks [2021] EWCA Civ 1374
The argument upheld by the Court of Appeal was the impossibility of classifying AI as a
patent application inventor. This ruling has had a substantial effect on the patentability of
innovations created using artificial intelligence.
Inventorship Issues: The Patents Act 197717 requires inventors to be natural persons.
This is the reason that potential reform is required, as Thaler's instance demonstrates with
regard to the use of AI to innovation. This paper will go into additional detail on the dispute
surrounding the Thaler case. Supporters of the existing legislation pointed out that
acknowledging AI as inventors will undermine human values associated with creativity and
overburden the legal system with AI patents. On the other hand, detractors argue that
ignoring AI-generated inventions could hinder innovation and leave valuable inventions
unattended.18 Such grounds raise conceptually sophisticated issues about the present
14
Mariarosaria Comunale, Andrea Manera: “The Economic Impacts and the Regulation of AI: A Review of the
Academic Literature and Policy Actions.”, 2024 International Monetary Fund;
https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2024/English/wpiea2024065-print-pdf.ashx.
15
Mohd Akhter Ali, M. Kamraju: Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property Rights: Challenges and
Opportunities, December 2023:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376751087_Impact_of_Artificial_Intelligence_on_Intellectual_Prop
erty_Rights_Challenges_and_Opportunities.
16
Patents Act 1977
17
Footnote 16 (supra)
18
Eden Winlow: The End of the Road for DABUS and Dr Thaler at the UK Supreme Court (Bristows) 2024:
Candidate number: C2099306
Student Number:0385012
situation of UK patent law or, from this perspective, Britain in its capacity to help companies
banking on the AI innovation in the process of offering new technologies. Technological
advancements in the area of artificial intelligence encompass creations of products whereby
the creations are mainly inclined towards technological solutions. Due to the fact that the
previous legal concepts and definitions are being challenged, this phenomenon is resulting
in the emergence of controversies in regard to the concept of authorship and inventorship.
In the long run, the decision could turn the inventions for which full concept creation is
executed by AI systems into ones that are harder to patent in the UK 19. This would be the
case because people would get tired of high-energy foods with much sugar, salt or spice and
turn to those that contain moderate amounts of sugar, salt or spice.
Impact on AI Innovation
The existing legal position may make it more difficult to protect inventions made by AI,
which could deter funding for AI R&D. A reconsideration of the concept of inventorship
might bring patent law up to date with emerging technologies20.
Clearer standards for protecting AI-generated ideas could be provided by the law if it
develops to recognise AI as inventors or co-inventors, which would encourage greater
investment in AI technologies. These adjustments must, however, also consider worries
about the likelihood of patent system misuse and guarantee that human innovators are not
adversely disadvantaged.
Comparative Analysis of UK and EU Law
Copyright Law
Both the UK and the EU face significant challenges in defining authorship and ownership of
AI-generated works. According to the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) 21
Stating who the author is and who owns the works created by an AI is almost impossible for
the UK sign and the EU. While protection mechanisms are outline by the EU Directive on
Copyright in the Digital Single Market and the UK’s CDPA, there are ambiguities, particularly
with regards to the ownership of those works that originated from computers (CGWs).
The UK's CDPA Section 9(3)22 states that the person who makes the essential arrangements
for a CGW's creation is its author. This does not, however, sufficiently handle situations in
which AI systems create works on their own with little assistance from humans. The current
legal system falls short of providing adequate answers to the difficult legal problems this
19
Sola-Elesin B. A Critical Analysis of The Possible Implications of AI on Patent Law in The Uk.
20
Moser P. How do patent laws influence innovation? Evidence from nineteenth-century world's fairs.
American economic review. 2005
21
Footnote 2 (supra)
22
Footnote 2 (supra)
Candidate number: C2099306
Student Number:0385012
ambiguity creates regarding the genuine authorship and ownership of content generated by
artificial intelligence. Although text and data mining (TDM) have some allowances made for
innovation, the concept of authorship in the context of AI is still problematic. The Directive
does not specifically address the particular difficulties presented by AI-generated works;
instead, its main goals are to ensure equitable pay and harmonise author rights. As a result,
there are comparable legal difficulties for the UK and the EU, however the EU's strategy
offers a little bit more leeway for innovation due to the TDM exceptions.
The parallels between the copyright systems in the UK and the EU show that both require
more precise definitions and regulations. Each legal system has to find the optimal solution
to encourage technological advancement and protect authors’ right to their works at the
same time. This is especially important as AI systems advance in sophistication and develop
the ability to create incredibly creative works that defy conventional ideas of authorship.
Patent Law
There are also many similarities between the EU and UK patent systems, most notably the
need that inventors be human. The UK Patents Act 197723 expects inventors to be natural
people, which is well supported by the recent court of appeal in Thaler v Comptroller-
General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks24. This judgement highlighted the human-
centric notion of inventorship by ruling that AI systems cannot be listed as inventors on
patent applications.
Similarly, the European Patent Office (EPO) has consistently rejected patent applications
that name AI as the inventor25. In keeping with UK practice, the EPO's standards mandate
that a patent application name the human inventor. This common condition highlights the
wider global agreement that, as it is in the current patent system, only humans are eligible
to claim the designation of inventor. The resemblance between the EU and UK patent
regimes emphasises the necessity of international discourse regarding patent law reform in
the context of AI. In order to accept AI-generated ideas and preserve the integrity of the
patent system, both jurisdictions acknowledge the necessity for possible adjustments.
Redefining inventorship or creating new patent categories expressly for discoveries
produced by AI are two possible improvements.
Proposals for Development of UK Copyright and Patent Law
Post-Brexit Considerations;
23
UK Patents Act 1977
24
Footnote 1 (supra)
25
https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/news/ai-cannot-be-named-inventor-patent-applications-0
Candidate number: C2099306
Student Number:0385012
The UK's departure from the EU provides an opportunity to independently refine its IP laws
to adequately address the challenges and opportunities presented by AI. 26 Several key
proposals can help the UK develop a more robust and forward-thinking IP framework:
- Clearer Definitions: Amending the UK copyright law to explicitly address authorship and
ownership of AI-generated works. Introducing statutory definitions for key terms
"computer-generated works" would provide greater legal clarity and reduce ambiguities 27.
Subsequently, this would involve specifying the criteria for authorship in the context of AI-
generated content, ensuring that the rights and responsibilities are clearly delineated.
- AI-Specific Exceptions: Implement exceptions for TDM that balance innovation with rights
protection, possibly following the EU's approach under the DSM Directive. Broader
exceptions for TDM would enable researchers and developers to utilize copyrighted
materials for AI training without infringing on the rights of content creators. However, it is
essential to ensure that these exceptions include adequate safeguards to protect the
interests of rights holders.
- Inventorship Reforms: Consider allowing AI to be recognized as inventors or co-inventors,
aligning with potential future international standards. This could involve revising the Patents
Act 1977 28 to include new provisions for AI-generated inventions. Allowing AI to be
recognized as inventors would acknowledge the significant contributions of AI systems to
technological innovation and ensure that valuable inventions are adequately protected.
Potential Post-Brexit Implications;
Post-Brexit, the UK has the flexibility to tailor its IP laws to better accommodate AI
advancements while maintaining alignment with international standards. Engaging with
international partners to establish consistent and forward-thinking legal frameworks will be
crucial. This will help ensure that UK law remains robust and effective in fostering
innovation while protecting the rights of human creators.
The development of a more precise legal framework for AI-generated works and inventions
will require a nuanced approach that considers the interests of all stakeholders. By taking
the lead in addressing these challenges, the UK can position itself as a global leader in AI and
26
Huw et al: “Artificial intelligence regulation in the United Kingdom: a path to good governance and global
leadership?” May, 2023: 2nd ed: Internet Policy Review; https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/artificial-
intelligence-regulation-united-kingdom-path-good-governance
27
Hafiz Gaffar, Saleh Albarashdi: “Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works: Exploring Originality and
Ownership in a Digital Landscape”, Asian Journal of International Law;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377625052_A_RT_I_C_L_E_Copyright_Protection_for_AI-
Generated_Works_Exploring_Originality_and_Ownership_in_a_Digital_Landscape
28
UK Patents Act 1977 ci 37
Candidate number: C2099306
Student Number:0385012
intellectual property law, promoting technological innovation while ensuring fair and
equitable protection for all creators.
Other Jurisdictions;
There is just one country in the world where a DABUS case has been brought to the highest
court of law, and that country is the United Kingdom. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in
the United States issued a decision that was quite similar in the case of Thaler v. Vidal
(2022).29 In this case, the court said Section 271 of the Patent Act establishes that only
human beings are eligible to be regarded innovators. In the case of Thaler v. Vidal (No. 22-
919), the request to appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court was turned down. Both the
European Patent Office and the Full Court of Australia reached the identical conclusion in
and Commissioner of Patents v. Thaler - [2022] FCAFC 6231. Both of these cases were
their respective cases: J 0008/20 (Designation of inventor/DABUS)30 on December 21, 2021,
decided on December 21, 2021. Several countries, including Germany, Israel, New Zealand,
Taiwan, and South Korea, have arrived at an identical result.
Only two nations have authorised the use of Thaler at this time: South Africa and Saudi
Arabia. It is rather clear from these applications alone that DABUS is the exclusive proprietor
of the concepts developed. But it's important to remember that the South African Patent
Office is the only organisation that keeps an eye on the other essential legal requirements.
South Africa enumerates all the possible grounds for revocation of a patent under this Act.
There is currently no chance that the Thaler patent will face opposition.
Conclusion
If on the one hand, the IP legislation of the United Kingdom seems to be facing challenges
that hinder AI progress, on the other hand, it also seems to find opportunities alongside
these challenges. Thus it is necessary to point out the tensions and the underlying
imbalances in regulating creativity and technology in the UK. AI advancements are exerting
increasing pressure on existing legal structures, such as the CDPA 1988, concerning
authorship and ownership of CGWs and inventions generated through the use of AI. The
CDPA should be reviewed especially to encompass and categorize AI-created content and to
provide instructions for authors to ascertain ownership and rights issues. Furthermore,
despite the new measures strengthening exceptions on text and data mining (TDM), like
changes should be effectively safeguarded to maintain authors' rights. The findings of the
Court of Appeal in the case Thaler and another v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs
and Trademarks [2021] EWCA Civ 1374 stipulating that only a natural person can be
presumed for a natural person, indicates the need for potential reforms in patent law to
account for AI-driven innovation. Post-Brexit, the Uk will have the opportunity to amend its
29
Thaler v. Vidal 43 F.4th 1207
Commissioner of Patents v. Thaler - [2022] FCAFC 62
30
J 0008/20 (Designation of inventor/DABUS)
31
Candidate number: C2099306
Student Number:0385012
legislation on IP rights devoid of external influence, in order to maintain pace with the new
technologies while adhering to international standards, which will further position the UK as
a world leader in both sectors – AI and IP.
Bibliography
Legislation
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Database Regulations 1997.
Patents Act 1977.
Case Law
Commissioner of Patents v Thaler [2022] FCAFC 62.
J 0008/20 (Designation of Inventor/DABUS).
Naruto v Slater 888 F 3d 418 (9th Cir 2018).
Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks [2021] EWCA Civ
1374.
Thaler v Vidal 43 F 4th 1207 (Fed Cir 2022).
Online Sources
‘AI Cannot Be Named Inventor in Patent Applications’ (European Patent Office,
2022) https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/news/ai-cannot-be-named-inventor-
patent-applications-0 accessed 13 February 2025.
Winlow E, ‘The End of the Road for DABUS and Dr Thaler at the UK Supreme Court’
(Bristows, 16 January 2024) https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/01/16/the-
end-of-the-road-for-dabus-and-dr-thaler-at-the-uk-supreme-court/ accessed 15
February 2025.
Books, Articles, and Reports
Abdikhakimov I, ‘Unravelling the Copyright Conundrum: Exploring AI-Generated
Content and Its Implications for Intellectual Property Rights’ (2023) 1(5) International
Conference on Legal Sciences
18 http://www.science-zone.org/index.php/conference/article/view/42 accessed 12
February 2025.
Ali MA and Kamraju M, ‘Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property
Rights: Challenges and Opportunities’ (December
2023) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376751087_Impact_of_Artificial_I
Candidate number: C2099306
Student Number:0385012
ntelligence_on_Intellectual_Property_Rights_Challenges_and_Opportunitiesaccesse
d 8 February 2025.
Binctin N, ‘TDM: A Challenge for Artificial Intelligence’
(2020) http://rida.ideesculture.fr/sites/default/files/2020-02/262-D1VA.pdf accessed
10 February 2025.
Butler TL, ‘Can a Computer Be an Author? Copyright Aspects of Artificial Intelligence’
(1981) 4 Comm/Ent LS 707 <URL> accessed 17 February 2025.
Cocoru D and Boehm M, ‘An Analytical Review of Text and Data Mining Practices and
Approaches in Europe: Policy Recommendations in View of the Upcoming Copyright
Legislative Proposal’ (2016) 1(05).
Comunale M and Manera A, ‘The Economic Impacts and the Regulation of AI: A
Review of the Academic Literature and Policy Actions’ (2024) International Monetary
Fund https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2024/English/
wpiea2024065-print-pdf.ashx accessed 9 February 2025.
Gaffar H and Albarashdi S, ‘Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works: Exploring
Originality and Ownership in a Digital Landscape’ (Asian Journal of International Law,
2024) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377625052_A_RT_I_C_L_E_Copyri
ght_Protection_for_AI-
Generated_Works_Exploring_Originality_and_Ownership_in_a_Digital_Landscape ac
cessed 11 February 2025.
Hassani H, Beneki C, Unger S, Mazinani MT and Yeganegi MR, ‘Text Mining in Big
Data Analytics’ (2020) 4(1) Big Data and Cognitive Computing 1.
Huw T et al, ‘Artificial Intelligence Regulation in the United Kingdom: A Path to Good
Governance and Global Leadership?’ (May 2023) 2nd ed, Internet Policy
Review https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/artificial-intelligence-regulation-
united-kingdom-path-good-governance accessed 14 February 2025.
John P and Bevan S, ‘What Are Policy Punctuations? Large Changes in the Legislative
Agenda of the UK Government, 1911–2008’ (2012) 40(1) Policy Studies Journal 89.
Leong WY, Leong YZ and Leong WS, ‘Evolving Ethics: Adapting Principles to AI-
Generated Artistic Landscapes’ (2024) 2024 International Conference on Information
Technology Research and Innovation (ICITRI) 242 (IEEE) <URL> accessed 17 February
2025.
Moser P, ‘How Do Patent Laws Influence Innovation? Evidence from Nineteenth-
Century World's Fairs’ (2005) 95(4) American Economic Review 1214.
Sola-Elesin B, ‘A Critical Analysis of The Possible Implications of AI on Patent Law in
The UK’ (2024).
Candidate number: C2099306
Student Number:0385012
Candidate number: C2099306
Student Number:0385012
Reflective Statement
Completing the Professional Practice Research Report module has been a very big step for
me, I have improved on my research, analytical, and critical thinking skills. The journey of
navigating complex legal issues, such as the intersection of AI and intellectual property (IP)
law, has further deepened my understanding of the evolving nature of legal frameworks in
the modern digital economy. This module gave me the platform to delve into detailed legal
analysis, interpret statutory provisions, and the critical assessment of landmark cases all of
the crucial skills for a career in law.
The rigorous research required for the report improved my ability to quickly and efficiently
gather, evaluate, and synthesize information from diverse academic sources and via caselaw.
This included assessing UK and EU legal texts, reviewing scholarly articles, interpreting and
understanding court judgments. The challenges of this report sharpened my attention to detail
and the capability to identify legal issues and well-reasoned arguments. Skills essential for
legal practice, where precise research forms the basis of effective legal advice and advocacy.
Additionally, the report helped me hone my legal writing and communication skills.
Understanding and clearly articulating complex arguments was necessary in creating my
report. This experience is directly transferable in drafting legal documents, such as briefs,
opinions, and contracts, where precision, accuracy and clarity are paramount.
Engaging with contemporary legal challenges, particularly the implications of AI on IP law,
also enhanced my critical thinking and problem-solving abilities. A Forward-looking
approach was crucial in evaluating the adequacy of the current IP laws as well as proposing
reforms to address the issues that have arisen so far. Skilled legal professionals are required
to expect responding to the fast changing and dynamic future legal and technological
advancements.
The comparative analysis of UK and EU law in my report exposed me to a broader
perspective on the current international legal standards and helped me understand the
importance of maintaining coherence in global legal practices. This understanding will be
highly beneficial in an ever increasingly globalized legal environment, where cross-border
transactions and international regulations are commonplace.
The Professional Practice Research Report module also taught me the importance of time
management and discipline. Balancing my extensive research, analysis, and legal writing
within set deadlines has prepared me for the basic requirements of legal practice, where
managing multiple tasks efficiently is a daily expectation.
In my future career, the skills I have developed and enhanced through this module will be
implemented. Whether working in a corporate legal department or the public sector,
Candidate number: C2099306
Student Number:0385012
conducting in-depth legal research, and delivering legal opinions, recommendations, and new
legal developments will be highly invaluable. The module's emphasis on proposing well-
reasoned legal reforms has equipped me with the capability to contribute to areas that are
increasingly relevant as technology continues to challenge traditional legal boundaries.
This Professional Practice Research Report has contributed substantially to my academic and
professional growth, which has equipped me with the essential skills and knowledge I require
to navigate and excel in the legal field.
DECLARATION
By submitting this assessment, I certify that: the assessment submission is entirely my own
unaided work, and I have fully referenced and correctly cited the work of others, where
required. I also confirm the contents of my submission have not been generated by a third
party, or through an Artificial Intelligence generative system. I also confirm that no part of
this assessment has been presented by me or anyone else to any University or body for
examination either in the United Kingdom or overseas.
· If the above statements are untrue, I ACKNOWLEDGE that I have cheated.
· I have not conducted research involving human participants for the purposes of this work.
·I have read the University’s Assessment Regulations and the Student Discipline Regulations
and understand any Assessment Related Offence/Academic Misconduct can lead to
consequences which include those set out below.
·I understand that if I am found to have committed an Assessment Related Offence/
Academic Misconduct under the Student Discipline Regulations, I will be reported to the
Solicitors Regulation Authority.
I further understand that under the SRA Assessment of Character and Suitability Rules, the
SRA will consider a deliberate assessment offence when assessing an individual’s character
and suitability to be admitted as a solicitor.
Candidate number: C2099306
Student Number:0385012
DATE- 06/02/2025
WORD COUNT- 498.
