INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY • SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT • COMPETITION
EU AND COMPETITION LAW
EU intellectual property law
The impact of EU legislation on the intellectual property laws applicable in the UK has been enormous. Wholly new substantive rights have been created - such as the Community trade mark, Community design and sui generis database right - and the laws governing other rights in most cases have been substantially modified. Even patent law, the field least affected, has seen the introduction of EU-wide supplementary protection certificates extending the length of patent protection available for medicinal and plant protection products and the harmonising of the law relating to biotechnological inventions.
Given chambers' focus on intellectual property law, all members of chambers have considerable experience of litigation featuring aspects of EU intellectual property law before the UK courts. Furthermore, many members of chambers have also represented clients before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in preliminary references on important points of EC law referred from UK courts and courts elsewhere in Europe and in appeals from the Court of First Instance (CFI). Some of the most important intellectual property cases before the ECJ have involved members of chambers, including the following:
Database Right and Copyright: The leading case under the Database Directive, BHB v. William Hill, was handled exclusively by barristers from 8 New Square. We were also involved in the copyright cases EGEDA v. HOASA and Laserdisken.
Trade Marks:, Members of 8 New Square have acted in most of the key recent ECJ cases in the fields of trade mark validity and infringement: Canon v. MGM, Marca Mode, BMW v. Deenik, Merz & Krell, Philips v. Remington, Sieckmann, Shield Mark, LTJ Diffusion, Davidoff v. Gofkid, Adidas v. Fitnessworld, Wrigley (Doublemint), Linde, Libertel, Gerolsteiner, Björnekulla, Nichols, Praktiker, Erpo, Gillette v. LA-Labs, Nestlé v. Mars, Elizabeth Emanuel, Opel and Dyson.
Patents and SPCs: Barristers from 8 New Square have been involved in a number of the cases relating to SPCs that have been referred to the ECJ - BASF, Merck, Wellcome and Yissum. They have also been involved in two significant cases regarding jurisdiction in cross-border patent litigation - GAT v. LUK and Roche Nederland v. Primus.
Members of chambers also have experience of drafting, advising on and presenting trade mark appeals to the CFI from the Boards of Appeal at the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (OHIM) in Alicante, as well as of direct actions before the CFI (Travelex v. Commission).
Competition and free movement of goods law
Members of chambers also advise on competition and free movement of goods law, on both a national and EU basis, especially when these areas of law interact with the exploitation and exercise of intellectual property rights. The subject most often confronted in these areas by members of chambers is probably parallel importation: members have been involved in some of the most important cases on this subject. Competition law defences to infringement claims are also frequently dealt with. Chambers' expertise extends beyond these subjects, however, to include advising and litigating on the competition law aspects of licensing, franchising and technology transfer, and dealing with competition issues arising under the common law doctrine of restraint of trade.
A few examples of cases involving Members of Chambers involving competition law and free movement of goods law are set out below:
Parallel imports / Free movement of goods: Barristers from 8 New Square appeared in perhaps the most important case in this area: Davidoff v. A&G Imports; Levis v. Tesco. Other significant ECJ parallel imports cases in which members of chambers have appeared include Merck v. Primecrown and Upjohn v. Paranova. In the UK courts, members have appeared in Doncaster v. Bolton, Roche v. Kent, Sun v. Amtec, Hewlett-Packard v. Expansys and R v. Medicines Control Agency ex p. Smith & Nephew.
Competition law (both EU and UK): Intel v. VIA, Microsoft v. Commission, Apple Corps v. Apple Computer, British Horseracing Board v. Victor Chandler, Hewlett Packard v. Expansys.
Non-IP EU law
A number of members of chambers also conduct work in areas of EU law with substantial technical content, notably pharmaceutical, agrochemical and foodstuff regulatory law, and also in the specialist area of data protection.
Pharmaceutical and agrochemical licensing: R v. MCA ex. p. Smith & Nephew, R v. MCA ex p. Rhône Poulenc, R v. MAFF ex p. Monsanto, Portman v MAFF.
Agricultural and foodstuffs regulation: R v. Secretary of State of the Environment and MAFF ex p. Watson, Seahawk Marine v. Southampton Port Health Authority, Antonio Muñoz v. Frumar.