8 NEW SQUARE

020 7405 4321

Recent ActivityRecent Cases

Daniel Alexander QC

 


Year of call: 1988
Year of silk: 2003

With over 25 years’ experience of litigation, Daniel has a wide practice focussing on intellectual property law but extending to other areas, including IT and media/entertainment law and a range of international disputes.

Patent work includes most areas of technology. Cases have involved medical and plant biotechnology (including SPCs), pharmaceuticals, chemical process design, telecommunications and mobile phones, medical and analytic equipment, electronics, petroleum engineering apparatus, data transmission and systems design, hydraulic equipment, consumer and household products.

Practice includes EPO, UK Patent Office and CJEU cases as well as appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

Media/copyright work includes rights licensing, copyright infringement and internet related cases in all areas, including music, visual arts, print and electronic media. Work includes cases for most major broadcasters.

Prominent trade mark work includes the leading ECJ cases Canon, BMW/Deenik Nichols, Gerolsteiner, Doublemint, Philips/Remington, Davidoff/Levis and Celltech, ASOS/Assos, Fage/Chobani.

His practice encompasses experience in arbitration in a range of tribunals and covering a diverse range of subjects in private and public international law extending to one of the leading cases on interim relief in public international law of recent years.

Patents

Actavis* v. Lilly (2017)

Supreme Court case on doctrine of equivalents.

Shanks v. Unilever* (2017)
Leading case on employee compensation.

Teva v. Gilead (2017)

Validity of supplementary protection certificate protecting Truvada.

Novartis v. Focus (2015-2016)

Patent for rivastigmine patches – Court of Appeal.

Thoratec* v. AIS (2016)

Patent for cardiac pump.

American Science v Rapiscan* (2016)

Patent for security scanning apparatus.

Fujifilm v. Abbvie* (2016)

“Arrow declarations” at first instance.

Lilly v. Janssen* (2016)

Approach to stay of proceedings pending EPO.

Unwired Planet v. Huawei/Samsung* (2014-2016)


Series of telecoms patent trials.

Boehringer v Teva* (2015-2016)

COPD medication patent and approach to appeals (High Court and Court of Appeal).

Teva* v. Leo (2015)


Leading Court of Appeal case on approach to obviousness.

Astra Zeneca* v. KRKA (2013-2015)

Largest damages award for a patent case in English law on cross-undertaking.

Microsoft v. Motorola* (2011-2013)


Telecoms patent (High Court and Court of Appeal).

Astra Zeneca v. Hexal and others* (2011-2013)

Patent for quetiapine formulation.

Vringo v. ZTE* (2013)


Telecoms patent and approach to FRAND determination.

Liversidge v. Owen Mumford (Abbvie) (2012)*


Patent in respect of delivery device for Humira®.

HTC* v. Apple (2012)


Telecoms patents and patents for design of mobile phones.

Shire v. Mount Sinai* (2011)

Patent for alpha-galactosidase-A.

Gemstar* v Virgin (2011)

Multiple TV guide patents.

Georgetown University* and others v. Comptroller (2011)

ECJ reference on Article 3(b) of SPC Regulation in biotech case concerning combination vaccines.

Shanks v Unilever* (2010-11)

Assessment of employee compensation where patent transferred in a corporate group.

Motorola* v RIM (2010)

Multiple patents relating to mobile telephony.

IPCom* v Nokia (2009-2011)

Synchronisation and RACH access in mobile telephony.

GSK* v Abbott (2007-9)

Royalties under patent licence relating to several biotech patents.

Cranway v. Playtech* (2009)

Internet gaming.

Ancon* v. ACS (2009)

Building materials.

Wake Forest/KCI* v. Smith & Nephew/Molnlycke (2009)

Wound dressings.

Symbian* v. Comptroller (2008)

Patentability of computer implemented inventions.

GSK* v Genentech (2007-8)

Immunotheraphy for RA. Leading case on when a stay should be granted pending EPO proceedings.

Actavis v. Janssen* (2008)

Beta-blockers involving chiral chemistry and law on novelty.

Novartis* v. Dexcel (2008)

Cyclosporine formulation.

Arrow* v Merck (2007)

Alendronate. Leading case on negative declarations.

DuPont* v Smurfitt (2007)

Drinks packaging.

Nichia v Argos* (2007)

Blue LEDs. Leading case on approach to disclosure.

Hoffman la Roche* v Chiron (2006)

Biotech patents concerning Fuzeon® HIV therapy and Herceptin® cancer therapy.

Samsung v Ericsson* (2006-7)

Multiple patents for aspects of mobile telephony.

Novartis* v Ivax (2006-7)

Cyclosporin formulation (Neoral®)

Aerotel v Telco* (2006)

Exclusions from patentability.

Mayne* v Teva (2004-2005)

Paclitaxel formulation.

Yeda v Imclone/Rhone Poulenc Rorer* (2005-2007)

Entitlement dispute concerning Erbitux.

Cambridge Antibody Technology* v Abbott (2005)

Licence dispute concerning Humira®.

ITG* v Algernon (2005).

Electronic tagging equipment.

Statoil v University of Southampton* (2005)

Sub-sea electronic mapping patent.

Celltech* v Medimmune (2002-4)

Humanised monoclonal antibodies

Pharmacia/Columbia University* v Par (2003)

Letters of request relating to latanoptrost.

Wyeth v Alpharma* (2003)

Controlled release minocycline.

Lunkbeck*  v Lagap (2003)

Citalopram process.

IDA v University of Southampton* (2003-6)

Entitlement dispute concerning pest control.

Artemi v CPA* (2003-4)

Patent renewal agent’s negligence concerning claims of US patent.

Alcatel* v Marconi (2002)

Digital transmission equipment (SDH cross-connects).

Woolard’s application (2002)

Effect of double patenting provisions.

R v. Comptroller-General* ex p Ash & Lacy (2002)

Powers of Comptroller.

SKB v Alpharma* (2002)

Seroxat® polymorph.

Elida Faberge* v Colgate Palmolive (2001)

Toothbrush design.

Trespaphan v Polinas* (2000-2001)

Packaging films.

SKF* v NSK (2001)

Ball bearings.

Baker Hughes* v Haliburton (2002)

Oilfield apparatus.

DITF v Fibreguide (2001)

Yarn making equipment.

Hewlett Packard* v Waters (2001-2)

HPLC pumping apparatus.

Novartis v Sangstat* (2000)

Blood products.

Procter & Gamble v Lever Bros* (1999-2000).

Washing products.

Prendergast’s Applications (2000)

Requirements for a valid “Swiss-style” claim.

Horne v Reliance* (1999)

Thermostatic mixer valves.

Carless* v Sofitech (1999)

Entitlement claim relating to drilling fluid formulation.

Nutrinova v FDL* (1998)

Artificial sweetener.

Bayer v Octapharma* (1999)

Stabilised immunoglobulins.

Connaught Laboratories'* Patent (1999)

B. Pertussis vaccine.

Samsonite v Carlton* (1997)

Luggage locking.

Luk Lamellan (1997)

Patent Office practice.

Electrolux v Black & Decker* (1996)

Lawn mower design.

Peaudouce v Kimberly Clark* (1996)

Diapers.

Organon v Hoffmann La Roche* (1995)

PCR (polymerase chain reaction) patent.

Richardson Vicks'* Patent (1997)

Combination cold therapies - revocation/amendment.

Petra Fischer’s Application (1997)

Motor car engines.

Chiron* v Organon and Murex (1992-96)

HCV genetic engineering patent.

Westland* v Kern (1994)

Helicopter avionics.

ICI v Montedison* (1995)

Silicate reinforced polymers.

Unilever v Chefaro* (1994-95)

HCG immunoassay.

Quantel* v Shima Seiki (1990)

Video electronics.

(* denotes clients)

  • What the Directories Say
  • "He has got an incredible mind, he is wonderfully articulate and he is incredibly accessible" "A smooth-as-silk silk who is willing and able to take a difficult case and find winning points in it. He sees the bigger picture, and clients like him because he's a great cross-examiner with a very delicate touch"
    Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2017

    "A very strong practitioner who is very fluent, thoughtful and strategic." "He's excellent both on a personal level and in terms of his advocacy and legal insight"
    Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2017

    "A barrister with a great mind who is very friendly"
    Chambers & Partners (Media & Entertainment) 2017

    "He provides clear, well-thought-through and commercial advice"
    Legal 500 (IT and Telecoms) 2017
     
    "An exceptional silk, who is able to look at matters from a judge's, advocates's and client's perspective"
    Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2017

    "He works extremely well in teams and approaches work with good humour and a positive attitude."
    Legal 500 (Media and entertainment) 2017

     "An excellent advocate and very capable adviser"
    Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2016

    "He has a good sense of how judges will be thinking"
    Legal 500 (Media and entertainment) 2016

    "He has a good demeanour and interaction style with solicitors and clients"
    Legal 500 (IT and Telecoms) 2016

    "He is a polished, accomplished advocate." "You always turn to Daniel Alexander for any knotty issues on the copyright side."
    Chambers & Partners (Media & Entertainment) 2016

    "Very good indeed - he is sensible, knowledgeable and a vey fine opponent"
    Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2016

    "Brilliant at handling complex cases that others make seem convoluted. He identifies the key issues and pares them down with apparent effortlessness" "Charismatic and great with clients"
    Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2016

    "Recommended for handling complex technological patent disputes"
    Legal 500 (IT and Telecoms) 2015

    "He knows his cases inside out, no stones are left unturned in his preparation"
    Legal 500 (Media and entertainment) 2015

    "Has enjoyed a career in IP few silks can match, and has appeared in many of the most significant patent, trade mark and copyright actions of the past 20 years"
    Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2015

    "Extremely well regarded and an absolutely superb advocate" "He understands how judges' minds work, so knows how to manage the court really well"
    Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2015

    "Admired for his his work in digital technology cases. Judges trust him because he only runs the best points"
    Chambers & Partners (Media & Entertainment) 2015

    "He is quite simply superb, and one of the very best at the patent bar"
    Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2015