020 7405 4321

Henry Ward


Year of call: 2000

Henry Ward has a BA and M.Eng. in Engineering from Emmanuel College, Cambridge, specialising in civil and mechanical engineering. A member of Middle Temple and an Astbury Scholar, he was called to the Bar in 2000. He previously served in the Queen's Gurkha Engineers in Hong Kong, Brunei and Nepal.

Henry's practice covers many aspects of intellectual property law, including patents, copyright and designs, trade marks and confidential information. His background is in engineering, and particularly civil, mechanical, petroleum and offshore engineering, but he deals with a wide range of technical subject matter. Henry’s practice has covered almost all areas of both “hard” and “soft” IP cases – from biotech and electronic patents cases to reality TV disputes. He has appeared in all UK forums up to and including the Court of Appeal, and has experience of the Supreme Court and the European Patent Office both in the Opposition Division and the Technical Board of Appeal. He has also advised on and represented clients at numerous mediations.

Henry has invaluable experience of extremely lengthy and complex trial work, having acted in the Ultraframe v Burnden dispute which occupied 100 days of court time. However he also has a great deal of experience in relation to far smaller disputes, including extensive experience of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court.


Recent patent actions in which Henry has acted include: Napp v Sandoz (pharmaceuticals); Unwired Planet v Google & Samsung (Trial E) (telecoms); Good Technology v MobileIron (telecoms); Focus v Novartis (pharmaceuticals); CGTL v Velocys (Fischer Tropsch processing); Nampak v Alpla (packaging); Rovi v Virgin (set-top boxes); Virgin v Premium etc (HC, CA and SC) (aircraft seating); Novartis v Mylan (pharmaceuticals); Sudarshan v Clariant (crystal form of pigments); MMI v CellXion (mobile phone interception); KCI v Smith & Nephew (medical devices); Research in Motion v Vista (telecoms); Queensland v Siemens (MRI); and Wobben v Vestas (wind turbines).


Novartis AG v Focus Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2015]EWHC 1068 (Pat)

Trial of a patent infringment claim, brought about by Novartis, over a patent directed at the drug rivastigmine for use in a method of treating alzheimer's disease through administration via a transdermal system, in particular a transdermal patch.

Nampak v Alpla [2014] EWCA Civ 1293, [2014] EWHC 2196 (Pat)

Grant of summary judgment for declaration of non-infringement of a patent relating to milk containers upheld by Court of Appeal

CompactGTL v Velocys [2014] EWHC 2951 (Pat)

Trial concerning the validity and infringement of a patent relating to Fischer Tropsch processes and gas-to-liquid technology

Rovi v Virgin [2014] EWHC 1559 (Pat)

Trial concerning the validity and infringement of a patent relating to set-top-box technology

Novartis v Hospira [2013] EWCA Civ 583

The principles applying to interim relief following a trial at first instance and pending appeal

Virgin Atlantic v Zodiac (Supreme Court) [2013] UKSC 46

The landmark decision on the application of principles of res judicata to patent issues, in circumstances where patents are revoked after orders for damages have been made on the basis of those patents

Virgin Atlantic v Zodiac (or Premium or Contour) and Jet, Delta etc [2012] EWHC 2153, [2010] EWHC 3094 (Pat), [2011] EWCA Civ 162, [2009] EWHC 26 (Pat) and [2009] EWCA Civ 1062

Ongoing patent dispute regarding business class seating systems. The proceedings have involved multiple hearings and trials both at first instance, in the Court of Appeal, and in the EPO, as well as the issue addressed by theSupreme Court referred to above. The latest Court of Appeal hearing takes place in November 2013.

Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd -v- Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH [2013] EWCA Civ 919 [2012] EWHC 2941 (Pat)

Trial and appeal concerning the validity and infringement of a patent for polymorphs of a commercial pigment.

MMI Research v Cellxion [2012] EWCA Civ 139, [2009] EWCA Civ 1120, [2009] EWHC 418 (Pat) (16 October 2009)

Patent action relating to mobile telephone interception devices retried in the HC (and subsequently appealed) following a CA decision to allow new evidence to be adduced by CellXion.

KCI v Smith & Nephew [2010] EWCA Civ 1260, [2010] EWHC 1487 (Pat),

Trial and appeal of a patent case relating to negative pressure wound therapy devices.

Blacklight Power Inc v Comptroller-General of Patents [2008] EWHC 2763 (Pat); [2008] WLR (D) 360

Successful appeal of a decision of the UKIPO regarding the patentability of an allegedly new method of generating power.

Research in Motion v Visto Corporation [2008] EWHC 335 (Pat), [2008] EWHC 3026 (Pat)

Trial about the Blackberry synchronisation systems, particularly well-known for the costs judgment regarding costs capping and appropriate spending

Queensland University v (1) Siemens Magnet Technology Ltd (2) Siemens plc [2007] EWHC 2258 (Pat)

Patent case relating to magnetic resonance imaging devices.

Aloys Wobben v Vestas-Celtic Wind Technology Ltd [2007] EWHC 2636 (Pat), [2008] EWHC 235 (Pat)

Patent case relating to wind turbine grid interface control systems

  • What the Directories Say
  • "He is a very clear, direct and no-nonsense barrister." "He is astute, tactically excellent and has great drafting skills"
    Chambers Directory (Intellectual Property) 2017

    "A very compelling advocate with great technical ability"
    Chambers Directory (Intellectual Property) 2016

    "An intelligent, confident and polished junior" 
    Chambers Directory (Intellectual Property) 2015

    "A very bright, gutsy and confident junior," he is "a bright and purposeful advocate."
    Chambers Directory (Intellectual Property) 2014

    Henry Ward "gives you real confidence" due to his knowledge of the law. "Persuasive and compelling on his feet," he is experienced at complex trials surrounding soft and hard IP rights
    Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013