8 NEW SQUARE

020 7405 4321

Recent ActivityRecent Cases

Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC

 


Year of call: 2004
Year of silk: 2014

VIEW PDF VERSION

Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC has acted in a wide range of intellectual property disputes in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. He has also frequently appeared at the European Patent Office (both before the Opposition Division and the Technical Board of Appeal) and represented clients in the Patents County Court (now IPEC) and at the UK Intellectual Property Office. IP-related arbitration is another area in which he has considerable experience, especially in arbitrations over patents and copyright.

Andrew has been involved in two of the leading cases concerning legal entitlement to patent priority (Gilead and AbbVie) and in the leading FRAND trial in the telecommunications field to be held in the UK (Unwired Planet v. Huawei). He also appeared for Krka and Consilient in a damages enquiry leading to one of the highest damages awards in the UK under a cross-undertaking (AstraZeneca v. Krka & Consilient).

The 2017 edition of Chambers & Partners describes him as “incredibly sharp and insightful” and that “He is just an excellent QC and a real pleasure to work with”. In 2016 Legal 500 described him as being a “go-to choice for high value cases”. Legal 500 has described Andrew as “indisputably one of the best advocates at the junior IP Bar”.

Notable cases include acting for Huawei in the FRAND litigation with Unwired Planet, acting for AbbVie in its disputes concerning Humira, acting for Gilead in its patent litigation with Idenix over the HCV drug “Sovaldi”, acting for Servier in the Supreme Court concerning the illegality defence in patent litigation, acting for ASOS in its trade mark dispute with Assos of Switzerland, and acting for Meltwater in its copyright dispute with the NLA over its news monitoring service.

Andrew has appeared in the House of Lords/UK Supreme Court in Rhone Poulenc Rorer v. Yeda (2007), in NLA v. Meltwater (2013) and in Servier v. Apotex (2014).

Andrew qualified as a solicitor in 1994 and joined the IP department of Bristows. He became an IP partner at Bristows in 2000. He practised as a Solicitor Advocate before being called to the Bar in 2004 and joining 8 New Square. He was Chambers & Partners’ IP Junior barrister of the year in 2012. He became Queen’s Counsel in 2014.

Patents

Andrew has appeared in many disputes in the pharmaceutical field including cases concerning calcipotriol, citalopram, clarithromycin, irbesartan, olanzapine, cetuximab, cyclosporine and perindopril.

In other technical fields Andrew has acted in cases concerning mobile phones (e.g. Unwired Planet v. HuaweiHTC v. Apple), electronic program guides (Gemstar v. Virgin Media), Medical devices (Smith & Nephew various), stents and heart valves (AGA v OcclutechAbbott v. Evysio), consumer products (SEB v. Jarden), breathable shoes (Gore v Geox), Blackberry (RIM v Inpro), Botox (Merz v Allergan), laminate flooring (Unilin v B&Q) and diapers (Kimberly Clark v Procter & Gamble).

A list of some of the clients for whom Andrew has acted includes: Huawei, AbbVie, HTC, Virgin Media, Smith & Nephew, Gore, GE Healthcare, Sanofi, Novartis, Servier, Leo Pharma, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Sandoz, Lagap, Dr Reddy's, Merz Pharma, Inpro, Aerotel, Evysio, Unilin Flooring, Baker Hughes, Strix, and Kimberly-Clark.

Unwired Planet v. Huawei

Technical trial and appeal concerning standard essential patent infringement and validity in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Followed by the non-technical trial to ascertain the applicable principles and rates to determine a FRAND licence in the telecommunication field.

Synthon v Teva

Andrew appeared in the Court of Appeal for Synthon in this dispute concerning glatiramer acetate marketed as Copaxone.

Fujifilm & Samsung v. AbbVie Biotechnology

A trial concerning the applicability of “Arrow” declarations. Andrew successfully led the defence to the attack on the chain of title for priority of the patent, issues concerning US, German and English law.

SSH Communications v. Sony Mobile Communications


Patent infringement and validity high court trial concerning Sony’s Xperia phones and tablets. Andrew acted for Sony in defending this action.

Idenix v. Gilead

Trial before Arnold J and an appeal (held in July 2016) concerning the HCV drug Sovaldi. The trial also included consideration of the requirements for a valid claim of priority, involving both US and English law.

JT International v. Fontem

High Court patent infringement and validity trial in the field of electronic cigarettes.

AS&E v. Rapiscan

High Court patent infringement and validity trail in the field of x-ray scatter mobile surveillance technology.

AstraZeneca v. Krka & Consilient

A claim by Krka & Consilient under a cross-undertaking for damages following an interim injunction. Krka & Consilient secured one of the largest damages awards under cross-undertakings in damages – an award of £27 million.

SEB v. Jarden

A high court patent trial between the makers of Tefal and Breville concerning shallow fryers. Andrew appeared for Jarden both in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal. The Appeal decision is an important decision concerning the use of reference numerals in a patent claim when construing the claim.

Swarovski-Optik KG v. Leica Camera AG and Leica Camera Ltd

Trial before Vos J held in April 2013 on a claim by Swarovski for infringement of its patent concerning high zoom riflescopes. The invention concerned the optical design of such scopes.

Phil & Ted’s Most Excellent Buggy Company v. TFK Trends for Kids GmbH

Trial in April 2013 in the Patents County Court before His Honour Judge Birss QC. The dispute concerned the “Promenade” buggy and TFK’s allegation that this buggy infringed their patent covering buggies which convert between a seat and a carrycot.

Seitz v. KHS Corpoplast & Norgren

Patent validity trial heard before Roth J in November/December 2012. The case concerns plastic pistons used in stretch blow moulding machinery.

Sanofi v. Actavis

Trial heard before Arnold J in September 2012 concerning Sanofi’s SPC covering the combination of irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide. The case concerns how the Court determines whether a product is protected by a basic patent in force and how many SPCs may be granted per patent. A reference has been made to the CJEU.

HTC v. Apple

Trial before Floyd J on the claim by Apple for patent infringement on four Apple patents (including the "swipe to unlock" and "photo bounceback" features used on the iPhone).

Sandvik v. Kennametal

Claim for patent infringement in respect of a patent for tool coatings. Trial heard before Arnold J.

Les Laboratoires Server v. Apotex

Claim for damages on a cross-undertaking including the application of ex turpi causa.

Lundbeck v. Infosint

Patent action concerning a process for making an intermediate used in the production of citalopram. Trial heard before Floyd J.

Gemstar v Virgin Media

Patent infringement and revocation action (both High Court and appeal) concerning patents covering various aspects of electronic program guides for television.

KCI v. Smith & Nephew

Patent action (both High Court and appeal) concerning negative pressure wound therapy pumps, canisters and kits.

Molnlycke v. Smith & Nephew

Patent action concerning adhesive wound dressings.

Nokia v IPCOM

A case relating to patents for technology involved in mobile phones.

Dr Reddy’s v Eli Lilly

Patent action concerning Eli Lilly’s patent for olanzapine (commercialized as “Zyprexa”). Concerned in particular with the issue of the UK approach to selection patents. Trial heard before Floyd J. and the appeal heard in November 2009.

Leo Pharma v Sandoz

Patent infringement and revocation action concerning the psoriasis medication calcipotriol. Interim injunction granted in 2008 followed by a trial before Floyd J. The appeal was heard in 2009.

Wake Forest/KCI Medical v Smith & Nephew

Patent infringement and revocation action concerning devices for negative pressure wound therapy.

JD Kelly & another v GE Healthcare Ltd

Employee patent compensation claim under s. 40 Patents Act in respect of the cardio imaging product MYOVIEW. Trial heard before Floyd J.

Laboratories Almirall v Boehringer Ingelheim

Patent revocation action concerning asthma and COPD combination medicaments. Trial held before Fysh HHJ.

Nichia Corp. v Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd.

Patent infringement action concerning the ACRICHE range of LED lights. Case settled before trial.

W.L.Gore v Geox

Declaration of Non-infringement and revocation action concerning breathable shoes. Heard before Floyd J. Appeal heard in 2009.

Buehler v Spomax

Patent action concerning two patents for milling processes for starch flour. Trial heard before Mann J.

Aerotel v Wavecrest

Patent action concerning telephone systems. Trial heard before Fysh HHJ.

Actavis v Novartis

Patent revocation action concerning patent protection for Lescol, a cholesterol lowering drug containing fluvastatin.

Abbott Laboratories v Evysio Medical Devices

Patent infringement and validity action concerning medical devices (stents).

Ancon v ACS

Patent infringement and validity action concerning channel and bolt fixings for the construction industry. Trial heard in 2008. The appeal was heard in 2009.

Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex

Patent infringement and revocation action concerning generic perindopril. Trial heard by Pumfrey J.

Fiberweb Plc v Baldwin Graphics Corporation

Declaration of non-infringement and validity action concerning three patents relating to print cylinder cleaning technology.

Otter Controls Ltd v Strix Limited

Infringement and validity action concerning two patents to electronic controls for kettles.

Unilin v Berry & B&Q

Dispute over whether damages ordered under a patent remain payable if patent is later revoked by the EPO. Court of Appeal judgment in April 2007.

Merz Pharma v Allergan

Patent revocation action concerning second medical use indications for Botulinum toxins (BOTOX and DYSPORT). Trial before Kitchin J.

Research in Motion v Inpro Licensing SARL (2005)

Patent revocation action (counterclaim for infringement) concerning BlackBerry system. Trial was held before Pumfrey J.

Novartis v Ivax Pharmaceuticals

Patent infringement and validity action concerning the anti-organ rejection drug cyclosporin. Trial before Pumfrey J followed by appeal.

Forticrete v LaFarge Roofing Limited

Patent and Registered design action concerning roof tiles. Application before Kitchin J. in 2006. Trial scheduled before Warren J. Settled at Trial.

Yeda v Rhone Poulenc Rorer (Aventis Holdings) & Imclone (2005)

Patent entitlement dispute concerning the patented cancer treatment, cetuximab. The action commenced in the Patent Office but has since been (on appeal) to the High Court, Court of Appeal and House of Lords. Successful appeal hearing before Lewison J concerning the application of s.37(5) as a limitation period upheld on further appeal to the Court of Appeal. House of Lords appeal heard in July 2007.

SPS v Baker Hughes

Patent infringement and validity action concerning oil tools.

Forest Safety v Fall Pac Ltd & FP International

Patent action in the High Court concerning impact absorbing safety units for the construction industry. Settled before trial.

Unilin Beheer v Berry & B&Q

Contested application in the Patents County Court concerning good faith and reasonable skill and knowledge of a patent for laminated wood flooring. Successfully defended judgment on appeal.

Sandoz v Abbott Laboratories

Patent revocation action brought by Sandoz against an Abbott patent concerning the pharmaceutical drug Clarithromycin. Matter settled following a contested application before Pumfrey J at which the principal claims in issue were summarily revoked.

Les Laboratories Servier v Niche Generics

Patent action concerning patents on the manufacture of the pharmaceutical perindopril, an ACE inhibitor which acts to lower blood pressure. The action settled during trial.

Kimberly-Clark v Procter & Gamble

Patent action in both the Patents County Court and High Court concerning children’s training pants. Interim applications concerning US 1782 Orders, transfer and disclosure generally before both Fysh HHJ and Pumfrey J.

Sandoz v Roche

A High Court patent revocation action concerning the preservation of multi-dose erythropoietin. The trial was heard by Patten J.

Unilin v Berry & B&Q

A patent infringement and revocation action in the Patents County Court before Fysh HHJ. And afterwards in the Court of Appeal. The patent concerned glueless laminated floor coverings.

Lundbeck v Lagap

Pharmaceuticals A patent infringement and revocation action concerning the anti-depressant pharmaceutical citalopram. The claim included allegations of wide scale fraud. The trial was heard by Laddie J.

Via v Intel

A patent amendment opposition in the electronics field in the UK Patent Office.

Jevons v 3M

A patent entitlement dispute in the UK Patent Office concerning foam masking tape.

Allergan v Pharmacia

In the High Court concerning latanoprost (used for the treatment of glPatent revocation and declaratory action aucoma).

Stannah Stairlifts v Freelift

A Patent infringement and revocation action in the Patents County Court before Fysh HHJ. The action concerned stairlifts.

SEB v De Longhi

A High Court patent infringement and revocation action before Pumfrey J. The case concerned deep fat fryers. Also appeared in the Court of Appeal.

Instance v CCL Label Inc.

A High Court patent amendment hearing concerning self-adhesive labels. The hearing lasted 2 days before Pumfrey J.

 

Trade Marks and Passing Off

Brand disputes, anti-counterfeiting actions and parallel importation disputes are all areas in which Andrew has expertise. Highlights include interim injunctions to prevent infringements (Gillette various, Dial-a-flight), litigation concerning kitchen mixer shape marks, Whirlpool (KitchenAid) v Kenwood and parallel imports Bolton Pharmaceuticals v Swinghope & others. Andrew has acted for an impressive list of clients in this field, such as Kenwood, Cadbury Schweppes, Gillette, Bolton, Accurist, and Dial-a-Flight.

Grazing v Graze


Trade mark dispute concerning the mail delivered snack business “Graze” and whether this was confusing with the restaurant and café business “Grazing” foods.

Assos v. Asos plc

Trade mark and passing off claim due to be heard in the High Court in June 2013. The dispute is between “Assos of Switzerland” and the on-line clothing retailer “Asos plc”.

Red Bull v 3D Entertainment Group

Trade mark and contract dispute concerning the mark “Red Bull”.

Whirlpool v Kenwood

Trade mark and passing off dispute concerning shape marks involving KitchenAid and Kenwood Kmix food mixers.

Boston Pharmaceutical Company 100 ltd. v Swinghope, Doncaster, Dowelhurst and others

Trade mark dispute concerning imported pharmaceuticals from Spain under the trade mark KALTEN.

Robert Perkins v Shone & Retriever Sports

Passing off action and appeal concerning dart flights.

Dr Browns v Bfree, Mothercare & Boots Plc

Patent, trade mark and passing off action concerning baby’s bottles. Application for interim relief. Settled prior to hearing.

Secretary of State for Health v Cyworks, MIS limited and NHS Yearbook Ltd

Interim injunction application brought by the NHS for alleged passing off in relation to a number of publications. The application was successfully defended at a hearing before Laddie J.

Lotus Group v Como Street Travel

Trade mark infringement action (including application for interim relief) concerning the mark Dial-a-flight.

Perkins v Shone & Retriever Sports

A High Court passing off action heard in June 2004 involving dart flights.

Gillette – various matters

A number of anti-counterfeit enforcement applications for Gillette in the field of disposable razors and batteries.

 

Copyright, Database Right and Design Rights

Andrew has appeared in copyright cases such NLA v. Meltwater (copyright in online news services), Endemol v Channel 5 (over the format rights for Big Brother), he has also acted in a variety of confidential information and design rights cases. These include litigation for Credit Suisse (confidential information relating to software), Bloomsbury & JK Rowling (Harry Potter), Clinton Cards (confidential information) and Turfmech Machinery (design right and registered design).

Newspaper Licensing Agency v. Meltwater & the PRCA

The appeal before the Supreme Court took place in March 2013. The case concerns the application of the temporary copying exception in copyright law to the Internet. The question concerns whether users of the Internet may be infringing copyright when they browse the Internet. A reference has been made to the CJEU.

Looney v. Trafigura

Breach of contract dispute concerning rights in management training programmes.

Rolawn v. Turfmech

Registered Design and design right dispute concerning large area agricultural turf mowers. Trial head before Mann J.

Bloomsbury Publishing & JK Rowling v. Lambert, Brown & Others

Applications for immediate interim injunctive relief following the theft and potential disclosure of copies of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince prior to its launch date. Follow up applications included bench orders and applications for contempt. Hearings before Mr Justice Lawrence Collins, Mr Justice Etherton and Mr Justice Mann.

Credit Suisse First Boston v. Delta and Others

4 day interim injunction hearing before Laddie J. concerning confidential information. The case concerned disputed software and misuse of source code and confidential technical and business functionality in a system. The case settled after the hearing and just prior to judgment.

Endemol v. five

A High Court copyright dispute concerning the format rights to Big Brother.

ICI Paints v Kalon

A High Court copyright and database right action concerning the Dulux colour palette.

 

Trade Secrets and Confidential Information

Bloomsbury Publishing & JK Rowling v Lambert, Brown & Others

Applications for immediate interim injunctive relief following the theft and potential disclosure of copies of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince prior to its launch date. Follow up applications included bench orders and applications for contempt. Hearings before Mr Justice Lawrence Collins, Mr Justice Etherton and Mr Justice Mann.

Credit Suisse First Boston v Delta and Others

4 day interim injunction hearing before Laddie J. concerning confidential information. The case concerned disputed software and misuse of source code and confidential technical and business functionality in a system. The case settled after the hearing and just prior to judgment.

Lotus Group Plc v Blue Bay Golf Limited

Confidential information dispute concerning customer lists in the golf holiday industry including successful search order.

Additional Information

Education and Awards

Bristol University BA (Hons) (First Class)

Qualified as solicitor 1994

Partner at Bristows 2000-04

Called to the Bar by the Middle Temple, 2004

Chambers & Partners IP Junior of the Year, 2012

Queen's Counsel, 2014


Other

Professional Memberships: Intellectual Property Bar Association (IPBA); Chancery Bar Association; Intellectual Property Lawyers Association (TIPLO).

Recent Activity

» Unwired Planet International Ltd (Claimant) -v-(1) Huawei Technologies Co Ltd (2) Huawei Technologies (Uk) Co Ltd (Defendants) & Unwired Planet Llc (Tenth Party)
» Unwired Planet International Ltd v (1) Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (2) Huawei Technologies (UK) Co. Ltd
» Synthon B.V. v Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 148
» Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Company v Abbvie Biotechnology and Others
» Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Co. Limited v Abbvie Biotechnology Limited and Abbvie Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 1
» Idenix Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Claimant) v (1) Gilead Sciences Iin. (2) Gilead Sciences Ltd. (3) Centre Nationale De La Recherches Scientifique (4) Universita Degli Studi Di Cagliari (5) L'UNIVERSITE MONTPELLIER II (Defendants) (2016)
» Sony Communications International AB v SSH Communications Security Corp
» Idenix Pharmaceuticals Inc. v Gilead Sciences, Court of Appeal - Awaiting Judgment
» Unwired Planet v Huawei and Samsung [2015] EWHC 3366 (Pat)
» (1) Fontem Holdings 1BV (2) Fontem Ventures BV v (1) Ten Motives Limited (2) 10 Motives Limited and Nicocigs Limited v (1) Fontem Holdings 1BV (2) Fontem Ventures BV [2015] EWHC 2752 (Pat)
» Wobben v Siemens [2015] EWHC 2114 (Pat)
» AstraZeneca AB & Anor v KRKA dd Novo Mesto & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 484
» Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v. SEB SA [2014] EWCA Civ 1629
» Les Laboratoires Servier & Anor v Apotex Inc & Ors (Rev 1) [2014] UKSC 55
» Aga Medical Corporation v Occlutech (UK) Limited [2014] EWHC 2506 (Pat)
» Rovi Solutions Corporation & Anor v Virgin Media Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 2301 (Pat)
» Swarovski-Optik KG v Leica Camera AG and Leica Camera Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 637
» Rovi Solutions Corporation & Anor v Virgin Media Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 1559 (Pat)
» Phil & Ted's Most Excellent Buggy Co. v. TFK Trends for Kids GmbH [2014] EWCA Civ 469
» AstraZeneca AB & Anor v KRKA, DD Novo Mesto & Anor [2014] EWHC 84 (Pat)
» Eugen Seitz AG v. KHS Corpoplast GMBH & Norgren AG [2014] EWHC 14 (Ch)

What the Directories Say

" He is incredibly sharp and insightful. His work is always of high quality and well thought through" "A barrister who is incredibly organised, very good on his feet and gives great strategic advice. "He is just an excellent QC and a real pleasure to work with."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2017
 
"A real star"
Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2017
 
 
"A go-to choice for high-value cases"
Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2016
 
"He always gives excellent advice and he's committed to the best for the client" "A very thoughtful litigator"
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2016
 
"A very good patent litigator with a huge wealth of experience."
Legal 500 (Intellectual property) 2015
 
"One of the best for patent litigation-he's always a pleasure to work with, he always does a good job and is popular with clients"
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2015
 
" A really thoughtful, hard-working team player"
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2015 
 
"Bears in mind the commercial considerations of importance to the client"
Legal 500 (Intellectual property) 2014

"an obvious choice, and a pleasure to work with"
Legal 500 (Intellectual property) 2013
 
 
 

 

 

  • What the Directories Say
  • " He is incredibly sharp and insightful. His work is always of high quality and well thought through" "A barrister who is incredibly organised, very good on his feet and gives great strategic advice. "He is just an excellent QC and a real pleasure to work with."
    Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2017
     
    "A real star"
    Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2017
     
     
    "A go-to choice for high-value cases"
    Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2016
     
    "He always gives excellent advice and he's committed to the best for the client" "A very thoughtful litigator"
    Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2016
     
    "A very good patent litigator with a huge wealth of experience."
    Legal 500 (Intellectual property) 2015
     
    "One of the best for patent litigation-he's always a pleasure to work with, he always does a good job and is popular with clients"
    Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2015
     
    " A really thoughtful, hard-working team player"
    Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2015 
     
    "Bears in mind the commercial considerations of importance to the client"
    Legal 500 (Intellectual property) 2014

    "an obvious choice, and a pleasure to work with"
    Legal 500 (Intellectual property) 2013