INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY • SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT • COMPETITION
JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES
Jurisdiction and private international law
Several members of chambers have particular expertise in the area of private international law and its application to intellectual property or related disputes. Most usually this concerns a dispute over which court or courts a claim can or should be tried in. This can often be of considerable tactical significance. Historically the United Kingdom courts simply refused to entertain any claim for infringement of foreign intellectual property rights.
A member of 8 New Square was instructed in the first case where the High Court accepted jurisdiction over an action concerning a foreign intellectual property, in that case a Dutch copyright: Pearce v. Ove Arup.
Several members of 8 New Square have been instructed in subsequent cases before the High Court and Court of Appeal which have established the rules that govern the bringing of proceedings in the UK in respect of unregistered and registered intellectual property: Fort Dodge v. Akzo; Coin Controls v. Suzo.
Members of chambers also appeared in Modus Vivendi v. Sanmex and Cintec v. Parkes both of which involved the rules for allocating jurisdiction between the courts of England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
More recently members of chambers have represented the United Kingdom government in cases before the ECJ concerning the question of jurisdiction of one European national court over actions concerning patents registered in another member state: GAT v. LUK; Roche Nederland v. Primus.
Members of 8 New Square also have experience of dealing with jurisdictional issues in contractual actions, such as disputes as to the correct choice of law and the appropriate forum for the litigation: Celltech v. MedImmune; Apple Corps v. Apple Computer.
In addition to these jurisdictional issues, members of chambers are accustomed to working together with lawyers in other jurisdictions to ensure the effective enforcement of relief secured in the UK and elsewhere.
Remedies - injunctions and monetary
Chambers has always prided itself on its innovative approach to remedies. Sir Hugh Laddie, a former member of chambers, is credited with the invention of the Anton Piller order (now more prosaically referred to as a search and seizure order). It was members of these chambers who persuaded the House of Lords to order disclosure in the Norwich Pharmacal case. Each of these is now a standard tool of intellectual property and other litigation.
More recently, members of chambers have been responsible for the creation of the post-expiry patent injunction (Dyson v. Hoover) and for the rediscovery of the "John Doe" injunction directed to persons unknown (Bloomsbury v. News Group).
Many clients want the traditional remedies - financial and injunctive - or are faced with claims for them. Here too, chambers has great expertise. Barristers at 8 New Square are able to work with instructing solicitors as part of an effective "rapid response team" when urgent interim injunctions are sought or defended.
Recent cases undertaken by members of chambers include one of the largest ever damages awards for patent infringement (Ultraframe v. Eurocell) and one of the largest settlements (Dyson v. Hoover).