8 NEW SQUARE

020 7405 4321

Recent ActivityRecent Cases

James Abrahams QC

 


Year of call: 1997
Year of silk: 2016

VIEW PDF VERSION

James Abrahams read Law at St Anne's College, Oxford where he obtained a BA and BCL. He was also a scholar of St Anne's and twice winner of the Law Prize. He was called to the Bar in 1997 as a scholar of Gray's Inn. James became a member of Chambers in 1999.

James specialises in all aspects of IP, including patents, copyright, design rights, moral rights, database and related rights, registered designs, trade marks, passing off and breach of confidence. He is particularly well-known for his work in high-technology, complex patent cases, having appeared in the large majority of the major electronics, telecommunications and smartphone patent cases of the last few years.

Major patent cases include:

• Rovi v Virgin Media and TiVo (EPG and set top box functionality)
• Microsoft v Motorola (email protocols)
• Ericsson v ZTE (mobile telecommunications)
• Xena v Cantideck (damages inquiry in respect of rolling loading platforms)
• Liversidge v Owen Mumford and Abbott (medical auto-injector devices)
• HTC v Apple (smartphone interfaces)
• HTC v IPCom (mobile telecommunications)
• Nokia v IPCom (mobile telecommunications)
• LG v Sony (Blu-ray players)
• Apple v Nokia (mobile telecommunications)
• Motorola v RIM (mobile telecommunications)
• Wake Forest v Smith & Nephew and Mölnlycke v Wake Forest (wound dressings)
• Phillips v Harvard (video coders/decoders)
• Halliburton v Smith (oil well drill bits)
• Nokia v InterDigital (mobile telecommunications)
• Ferag v Muller Martini (print finishing machines)
• Glaxo’s Patent (Seretide® inhalers)
• Intel v VIA (microprocessors and chipsets)

Other major cases include:

• IPC Media v Media 10 (trade marks)
• Total v You View (trade marks)
• Coward v Phaestos (automated hedge fund software copyright)
• PRS v B4U (copyright in Bollywood musical songs)
• The Da Vinci code copyright case, Baigent v Random House
• 19TV v Freemantle (copyright in the format of ‘Pop Idol’)
• IPC Media v Highbury (copyright in magazine covers)
• Honda v Neesam and others (parallel imports of Honda motorbikes)
• British Horseracing Board v William Hill (the first case in which the UK and European courts had to deal with the database right created by EC Directive 96/9).

 

Patents

James is particularly well-known for his work on major patent actions in the field of mobile telecommunications, acting for clients including Huawei, Nokia, HTC, Motorola, Ericsson and Microsoft. Other major patent matters on which he has acted include Wobben v Siemens (wind turbines) Rovi v Virgin Media and TiVo (EPG and set top box functionality) Microsoft v Motorola (email protocols), Liversidge v Owen Mumford and Abbott (medical auto-injector devices), LG v Sony (Blu-ray players), Phillips v Harvard (video coding/de-coding), Wake Forest v Smith and Nephew and Mölnlycke v Wake Forest (both concerning wound dressings), Ferag v Muller Martini (paper trimming machines), Halliburton v Smith (oil well drill bits), Intel v VIA Technologies (microchips).

Teva v Actavis [2015] EWHC 2604 (Pat)

Claim for an interim injunction in respect of Teva's patent for rasagiline tartrate (a treatment for Parkinson's disease).

Wobben v Siemens [2015] EWHC 2114 (Pat)

Claim for infringement of a patent for wind turbine technology. The case was unusual in that James succeeded in applying for an order for disclosure of the defendant's customer prior to establishing liability (see  [2014] EWHC 3173 (Pat)

Rovi v Virgin Media and TiVo; (judgements include  [2014] EWHC 828 (Pat), [2014] EWHC 2301 (Pat), [2015] EWCA Civ 781)

A multi-jurisdictional dispute involving several patents for EPG and set-top box functionality. A series of trials and appeals were heard throughout 2013 to 2015.

TCT v Ericsson (2013-2015)

Voice coding patents for mobile telecommunications

Teva v Amgen [2013] EWHC 3711 (Pat)

Claim concerning Amgen's patent for G-CSF analog. A novel issue arose as to who should be the parties to the proceedings; James successfully argued that the Amgen parent company should be a defendant to the revocation and non-infringement claims even though it did not own the patent in suit.

Microsoft v Motorola [2012] EWHC 3677 (Pat),[2013] EWCA Civ 1613  

A patent for two-way pagers which was said to be infringed by Microsoft's Exchange ActiveSync protocol, by which mobile devices sychronise with Microsoft Exchange Servers.


Nokia v IPCom and IPCom v HTC

These are related, long-running disputes in which IPCom has asserted numerous patents against HTC and Nokia. The case involves not only complex technical issues but also the right to, and terms of, a licence on FRAND terms to patents which are essential to a mobile telecommunications standard.
There have been numerous trials and appeals, including judgements of the Court of Appeal considering in detail the law on added matter [2012] EWCA Civ 567; and revising the guidance for courts considering applications to stay patent proceedings when there are related proceedings in the EPO: [2013] EWCA Civ 1496.  


Xena v Cantideck [2013] EWPCC 1

An inquiry as to damages for infringement of a patent relating to rolling loading platforms.

HTC v Apple [2012] EWHC 1879 (Pat)

Apple claimed infringement of 4 patents relating to the user interface of its iPhone, ranging from the “swipe to unlock” feature to the software implementation of the multi-touch event handler. James was part of team which successfully defended HTC in relation to all 4 patents.

Liversidge v Owen Mumford and Abbott [2012] EWPCC 33

Medical auto-injectors. The case raised issues of novelty, obviousness, added matter and infringement, requiring experiments on both sides.

LG v Sony (2011-2012)

Major, multi-jurisdictional dispute, involving numerous patents for Blu-ray players and advanced television functionality.

Apple v Nokia (2010-11)

A major dispute involving claims and counterclaims of infringement of patents related to smartphone technology.
 

Wake Forest v Smith & Nephew [2009] EWHC 1164 (High Court) [2009] EWCA Civ 848 (Court of Appeal) and Mölnlycke v Wake Forest [2009] EWHC 2204 (Pat)

Negative therapy wound dressings. Unusually, validity of the patent was tried twice (for
reasons explained by Kitchin J in his judgment [2009] EWHC 1798 (Pat)). The case raised issues concerning novelty, inventive step, added matter and extension of scope by amendment.

Crystal Fibres v Fianium (2009)

Optical fibre technology. The judgment on the defendant’s application to strike out the action [2009] EWHC 2149 (Pat) explores the level of knowledge which a patentee requires before he can legitimately commence infringement proceedings.

Philips and others v Harvard (formerly Alba)

Action for infringement of 16 patents relating to MPEG2 video encoding technology, commenced by the members of a patent pool. The case raised issues of licensing and competition law/FRAND royalties (as well as infringement and validity). The judgment of Lewison J [2009] EWHC 1600 (Pat) addressed the case management issues arising in such a complex case.

Armour v Leisuretech [2008] EWHC 2797 (Pat)

Distributed audio systems. 

Samsung v Ericsson (2007)

Mobile telecommunications. As well as infringement and validity of both side’s patents, the right
of each side to a FRAND licence to the other’s patent portfolio was in issue.

Halliburton v Smith International [2006] RPC 25

Two patents relating to the design of roller cone drill bits, which are used for drilling oil wells and the like. Issues included insufficiency, obviousness, lack of novelty and lack of patentable subject
matter.

Nokia v InterDigital (2005-2008)

A complex dispute concerning whether a large number of patents, owned by each side, were essential to the European standards for third generation (‘3G’) mobile telecommunications. Interlocutory battles included a hearing in the Court of Appeal concerning extent of the court’s jurisdiction to grant declaratory remedies ([2007] FSR 570). Pumfrey J gave judgment on the first trial in December 2007 [2007] EWHC 3077 (Pat). The proceedings settled in June 2008.

Ferag v Muller Martini [2006] EWHC 225 (Pat); [2007] EWCA Civ 15

Machines for trimming books and magazines. As well as issues of infringement, obviousness and novelty, the case involved an application for amendment, which raised issues of added matter and lack of clarity.

Glaxo’s Patent [2004] RPC 843

An action for revocation of the patent protecting Glaxo’s most successful product, Seretide®, a
combination inhaler for the treatment of asthma. The thrust of Glaxo’s case was that the patent’s inventiveness lay in overcoming a prejudice held by those in the art.

Telsonic AG’s Patent [2004] RPC 744

Ultrasonic industrial sieving devices.

Intel v VIA Technologies and others

Two patent actions in which Intel sued on patents relating to microchips used in personal computers, in particular microprocessors and chipsets. The defendants raised competition law defences in both actions; Intel obtained summary judgment on these issues from LawrenceCollins J ([2003] FSR 175) but the Court of Appeal held that some of these issues should go to trial ([2003] FSR 574, [2003] EuLR 85). The issues of infringement and validity of the microprocessor patents were tried before Pumfrey J in February 2003, but the case settled after judgment was reserved.

Taylor v Ishida [2000] FSR 224

Bagging machines for snacks.

Trade Marks and Passing Off

Major trade mark cases include Total v YouView, which raised issues of clarity of specifications, Honda v Neesam and others, concerning parallel imports of Honda motorbikes from Australia and elsewhere; Thomson Holidays v Norwegian Cruise Line, the leading Court of Appeal case on partial revocation for non-use; and  Euromarket Designs v Peters (the CRATE & BARREL case). Further trade mark cases in which James has acted have covered areas as diverse as magazines and exhibitions (IPC Media v Media 10) pharmaceuticals (Ratiopharm GmbH's Trade Mark Application), luggage (Premier Luggage v The Premier Company) dentistry (Harding v. Smilecare), the Internet (1-800 Flowers Inc v. Phonenames) and kitchenware (Premier Brands v. Typhoon Europe). Major passing off cases including thre "Henry" vacuum cleaner cases, and acting for Midland Bank in the HSBC case, a dispute with HFC Bank.

IPC Media v Media 10 [2014] EWCA Civ 1439

This was an action for infringement of the IDEAL HOME trade mark as applied to online retail services. The judgement of the Court of Appeal addresses the question of when honest concurrent can provide a defence to trade mark infringement.

Total vYouView [2014] EWHC 1963 (Ch)

This action concerned the use of the trade mark YOUVIEW on set-top boxes. The case raised interesting issues concerning the clarity of trade mark specifications, and whether lack of clarity is a ground of invalidity; and bad faith.

Honda v David Silver [2010] FSR 40

A case concerning parallel imports of spare parts, and in particular what needs to be pleaded to get such a case off the ground.

Numatic v Qualtex [2010] EWHC 1237 (Ch)

Passing off case concerning the shape of the iconic ‘Henry’ vacuum cleaner.

Honda v Neesam and others [2008] EWHC 338 (Ch)

Parallel imports of Honda motorbikes from Australia and elsewhere. The inquiry as to damages is currently continuing (see [2009] EWHC 1213 (Pat) for a judgment concerning the conduct of that inquiry).

Claessens v Claessens (2009-2010)

Allegations of passing off and trade mark infringement between two branding companies formerly part of the same corporate group. 


Ratiopharm GmbH's Trade Mark Application [2007] RPC 28 (Appointed Person)

Appeal from the Registrar of Trade Marks, raising a number of issues concerning the proper application of section 5(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

Premier Luggage & Bags v The Premier Company [2001] FSR 461, [2001] ETMR 49 (High Court) [2003] FSR 69, [2002] ETMR 69 (Court of Appeal)

Trade mark infringement and passing off, wholesale luggage and bags.

Thomson Holidays v Norwegian Cruise Line [2003] RPC 586 (Court of Appeal)

Infringement of two registered trade marks. This was the first judgment of the Court of Appeal to consider the question whether, and if so how, a trade mark specification should be “cut down” under s. 46 of the Trade Marks Act (revocation for non-use), to reflect the actual use of the mark
made by the proprietor.

Harding v Smilecare [2002] FSR 589

Trade mark infringement and passing off in the field of dentistry.

800-FLOWERS trade mark (1-800 Flowers Inc v Phonenames) [2001] IP&T 839, [2002] FSR 12 (Court of Appeal)

A leading case in the Court of Appeal in relation to what circumstances use of a trade mark on a foreign Internet site amounts to use of that trade mark in this jurisdiction, and also gave guidance on how summary costs are to be assessed.

Cleopatra Seafoods v Khera and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1260 (Court of Appeal)

A trial of a preliminary issue in a passing off case; followed by an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The decision of Judge Fysh QC – that the claimant’s claim had been compromised by the giving of undertakings before the action commenced – was upheld by a majority of the Court of Appeal

Primark v Lollypop [2001] FSR 637, [2001] ETMR 30

Passing off and trade mark infringement by the claimant’s supplier selling goods “out the back door”. The judgment on the claimant’s successful application for summary judgment explains the
circumstances in which goods become “goods of the proprietor” for the purposes of s. 10(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, and for the equivalent concept in the law of passing off.

Euromarket Designs v Peters (the CRATE & BARREL case) [2001] FSR 288, [2000] ETMR 1025, [2000] IP&T 1290

The judgment of Jacob J laid down a number of principles relating to cross-border dimensions of use and infringement of trade marks; including a discussion of when use of a mark on the Internet will infringe a registered trade mark.

Premier Brands v Typhoon Europe [2000] FSR 767, [2000] ETMR 1071, [2000] IP&T 218

The first contested English trial of an action under section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, in
which the makers of TYPHOO tea complained of the use of the mark TYPHOON in relation to kitchenware such as woks.

HFC Bank v Midland Bank (the HSBC case) [2000] FSR 176

A passing off action by HFC Bank relating to Midland Bank’s new name: HSBC. The first instance judgment emphasised the difference between deception and mere confusion; the case settled after an appeal to the Court of Appeal had been heard.

Copyright, Database Rights and Design Rights

James has been involved  in copyright infringement cases concerning software (Destra v Comada, Coward v Phaestos),  The Da Vinci Code (Baigent v Random House); the television programmes The X Factor and Pop Idol (19TV v. Fremantle and Simon Cowell); and the design of Ideal Home magazine (IPC Media v Highbury). He also has extensive experience of design rights, including registered and unregistered designs under both domestic UK and Community legislation.

Copyright

Coward v Phaestos  [2013] EWHC 1292 (Pat)

Software for automated hedge fund trading. The dispute was between a hedge fund and a former director, and raised issues over who owned the software (which in turn raised complex issues of partnership, contract and company law), what rights each party had to use the software, copying, and reproduction of a substantial part.

There was an appeal on costs in which the Court of Appeal addressed the proper approach to the question whether a party had beaten an offer to settle in a non-money-case -see  [2014] EWCA Civ 1256.

PRS v B4U [2012] EWHC 3010 (Ch), [2013] Bus LR 664, [2013] FSR 19 (Vos J); [2013] EWCA Civ 1236, [2013] WLR(D) 385 (Court of Appeal)

Copyright action relating to songs written for Bollywood musicals. The case involved consideration of the operation of section 91 of the 1988 Act.

Destra v Comada [2013] EWHC 1575 (Pat)

Trial of a preliminary issue of ownership of software for financial trading.
 

Baigent v Random House (‘The Da Vinci Code’ case) [2006] FSR 719 (Peter Smith J); [2007] FSR 579 (Court of Appeal)

The authors of ‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail’ claimed that their copyright had been infringed by Dan Brown’s phenomenally successful thriller ‘The Da Vinci Code’. After a trial lasting in excess of 3 weeks, the case eventually turned on the extent to which copyright can protect ideas of a historical nature against use by others. The case was dismissed on the grounds that the matters complained of were not protectable by copyright and the Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

19TV v Fremantle and Simon Cowell (the ‘Pop Idol/X Factor’ case) (2005)

The claimant alleged that the television programme ‘The X Factor’ infringed its copyright in ‘Pop Idol’. The case settled at the door of the Court.

IPC Media v Highbury [2005] FSR 434

Alleged infringement of the copyright of Ideal Home magazine. The complaint related not to the words and pictures, but to the design and layout of the front cover of Ideal Home and some internal articles.

Pensher Security v Sunderland CC [2000] RPC 249 (Court of Appeal)

An action for infringement of copyright in the design drawings for reinforced doors. The Court of Appeal’s judgment set out a number of principles concerning secondary infringement of copyright.

UK and Community Design Right

Clinisupplies v Park (2012)

Design for a catheter pack. The case is notable for Arnold J’s judgment [2012] EWHC 3453 (Ch), [2012] WLR(D) 369 explaining when a design is too general to be protected.
 
T-Comedy v Principles (2009)

Designs for high-street fashion clothing.

Tekmar v Seadrift (2009)

Designs for cargo cranes.

Esprit v Primark (2008)

Designs for high-street fashion clothingand accessories.

Safestand v ZDN (2009)

Patent and designs for scaffolding equipment.

De Grisogono v Guess (2007)

Registered designs for watches.

River Island v Primark (2006)

Designs for high-street fashion clothing and accessories.

Baekert v Boylin (2006)

Designs for industrial roll cages.

Monsoon v Primark (2005)

Designs for high-street fashion clothing and accessories.

Database Right

British Horseracing Board v William Hill

The first case in which the UK and European courts had to deal with the database right created by EC Directive 96/9. At first instance Laddie J [2001] RPC 31, [2001] 2 CMLR 12 upheld BHB’s claim against William Hill’s use of names of the horses running in a race and the date, time and location of the race (all derived from BHB’s database) in its Internet betting business. The Court of Appeal [2001] EWCA Civ 1268, [2002] ECDR 41 referred eleven questions of interpretation of the Directive to the European Court of Justice. The Court of Justice’s judgment [2005] RPC 260, [2005] 1 CMLR 15, gave guidance as to what was protected by the database right and the meaning of “obtaining”, “verification”, “extraction”, “re-utilisation” and “(in)substantial parts”. The Court of Appeal applied the Court of Justice’s judgment, allowed William Hill’s appeal and dismissed the BHB’s claim [2005] RPC 883.

Media and Entertainment

James’ broad experience of media and entertainment cases ranges from IPC Media v Highbury (copyright case relating to Ideal Home magazine) to Carlton Film Distributors v VCI and VDC (application for Norwich Pharmacal disclosure against a duplicator of DVDs). In advertising matters he acted for Hutchison 3G in a comparative advertising case against O2 Holdings involving an application for a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice. He also acted in Re: David Bedford and The Number, the first case heard by the Ofcom Content Board. It concerned former athlete David Bedford and the ‘118 118 runners’.

Publications

Associated Newspapers v Persons Unknown (2010)

An emergency application for an injunction against the publishers of a spoof of the ‘Metro’ newspaper.

Sienna Miller v Big Pictures (2008)

Claim for harassment and invasion of privacy by actress Sienna Miller.

Baigent v Random House (‘The Da Vinci Code’ case) [2006] FSR 719 (Peter Smith J); [2007] FSR 579 (Court of Appeal).

The authors of ‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail’ claimed that their copyright had been infringed by Dan Brown’s phenomenally successful thriller ‘The Da Vinci Code’. After a trial lasting in excess of 3 weeks, the case eventually turned on the extent to which copyright can protect ideas of a historical nature against use by others. The case was dismissed on the grounds that the
matters complained of were not protectable by copyright and the Court of Appeal upheld this decision. 

IPC Media v Highbury [2005] FSR 434

Alleged infringement of the copyright of Ideal Home magazine. The complaint related not to the words and pictures, but to the design and layout of the front cover of Ideal Home and some internal articles.

Broadcast

19TV v Fremantle and Simon Cowell (the ‘Pop Idol/X Factor’ case) (2005)

The claimant alleged that the television programme ‘The X Factor’ infringed its copyright in ‘Pop Idol’. The case settled at the door of the Court.

Film

Carlton Film Distributors v VCI and VDC [2003] FSR 876

Application for Norwich Pharmacal disclosure against a duplicator of DVDs. Jacob J held that a Norwich Pharmacal order is also available where the intended claimant knows the identity of the alleged wrongdoer, but wants more information about the wrongdoing from a third party.

Cattleya v Capitol Films (2009)

Breach of film distribution agreement.

Advertising

Young’s v Birds Eye (2010)

Representing Young’s in a complaint over an comparative advertising run by Birds Eye.

Google v Lavora and others (2010)

An action on behalf of Google against a large number of companies who were offering search engine optimisation (SEO) services in a misleading manner.

Science in Sport v Hi 5 (2009-2011)

An action for malicious falsehood and trade mark infringement arising out of comparative advertising.

Getty Images v JA Coles (2009)

Copyright action concerning use of library pictures on the Internet.

O2 Holdings v Hutchison 3G [2005] ETMR 62

An application for a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice, in a case concerning comparative advertising.

Re: David Bedford and The Number (2003-2004)

Dispute between the former athlete David Bedford about The Number’s ‘118 118 runners’. It was the first case heard by the Ofcom Content Board. It accepted that there had been a breach of the
ITC Advertising Code but declined to prohibit further broadcasting of the advertisements, on the grounds that it would be disproportionate to do so. Mr Bedford did not institute legal proceedings.

Music

PRS v B4U [2012] EWHC 3010 (Ch), [2013] Bus LR 664, [2013] FSR 19 (Vos J); [2013] EWCA Civ 1236, [2013] WLR(D) 385 (Court of Appeal)

Copyright action relating to songs written for Bollywood musicals. The case involved consideration of the operation of section 91 of the 1988 Act.

James has also appeared in numerous cases for Phonographic Performance Limited, the collecting body for copyright in sound recordings.

Other

EDO Corp v Ultra Electronics [2009] EWHC 682 (Ch), [2009] Bus LR 1306; [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 349

Application for pre-action disclosure under rule 31.16 CPR, relating to secret document concerning the design of a sonar system for an anti-aircraft warship. The application raised a novel issue under the Arbitration Act 1996 and its relation to rule 31.16.

Totalise v The Motley Fool and Interactive Investor [2002] 1 WLR 1233, [2002] FSR 778, [2002] EMLR 20 (Court of Appeal)

Appeal on costs only, relating to a Norwich Pharmacal application. The Court of Appeal held that the general rule for such applications should be that the innocent respondent should receive its costs from the applicant, and allowed the appeal on that basis. The case also raised issues under the Data Protection Act 1998.


The Gadget Shop v The Bug.Com [2001] FSR 383

Application to set aside a search and seizure (“Anton Pillar”) order, in a confidential information case. The order was set aside on a number of grounds, including material non-disclosure and breaches of the CPR.
 

Additional Information

Education and Awards

1992-95: St Anne’s College, Oxford, BA (Hons) Jurisprudence Scholar of St Anne’s College and winner of College Law Prize.
1995-96: St Anne’s College, Oxford, Bachelor of Civil Law Winner of St Anne’s College Law Prize.
1996-97: Inns of Court School of Law, Bar Vocational Course Scholar of Gray’s Inn.

Publications

Halsbury’s Laws of England (Fourth edition, 2000 reissue).Contributor (‘Trade Marks and Trade Names’).

Bullen & Leake & Jacob’s Precedents of Pleadings (Fourteenth edition, 2001 and 15th ed., 2003). Contributor.

Seminars and Lectures

James regularly gives lectures and seminars to solicitors and other professionals concerning developments in intellectual property law and litigation.

Other

Professional Memberships: Intellectual Property Bar Association,
Chancery Bar Association.

Recent Activity

» Varian Medical Systems International AG vs (1) Elekta Ltd, (2) Elekta Holdings Ltd [2017] EWHC 712 (Pat).
» Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd v (1) Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd (2) Sandoz Ltd (2016)
» Sony Communications International AB v SSH Communications Security Corp
» Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Ltd, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and others [2016] EWHC 94 (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)
» IPC Media Ltd v Media 10 Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1439
» Coward v Phaestos Ltd & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 1256
» Coward v Phaestos Ltd & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 1256
» Rovi Solutions Corporation & Anor v Virgin Media Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 2301 (Pat)
» Microsoft Corp v Motorola Mobility LLC [2013] EWCA Civ 1613
» (1) Teva Pharma BV (2) Teva UK Lt v (1) Amgen Inc (2) Amgen Manufacturing Ltd [2013] EWHC 3711 (pat)
» IPCom GMBH & Co KG v (1) HTC Europe Co Ltd (2) Brightpoint Great Britain Ltd (3) HTC Corp.
» Destra Software Ltd v Comada (UK) LLP and others [2013] EWHC 1575 (Pat)
» Coward v Phaestos and ors [2013] EWHC 1292 (Ch)
» Xena Systems Ltd v Cantideck and Conquip Industrial [2013] EWPCC 1

What the Directories Say

He is incredibly intelligent. He is a street fighter advocate who gets down to the nitty gritty and rolls his sleeves up. He always puts in the effort and is unafraid of the difficult cases- he gets the best out of them." "He is fantastic on paper and a very logical thinker. He is extremely hard working, has never let me down and makes it an easy working relationship"
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2017

"A very clever barrister and a sharp opponent."
Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2017

"A tenancioius advocate and someone you want on your side"
Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2016

"A very astute and commercail senior junior, he's someone with excellent written and oral skills"
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2016

"A very able and commercial barrister who produces quality pleadings"
Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2015

"He's astute and tactically excellent, and has great drafting skills" 
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2015

"Confident, clear, tenacious and pragmatic, he has excellent written and oral skills."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2014

"Produces quality pleadings"
Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2014 


 

 

  • What the Directories Say
  • He is incredibly intelligent. He is a street fighter advocate who gets down to the nitty gritty and rolls his sleeves up. He always puts in the effort and is unafraid of the difficult cases- he gets the best out of them." "He is fantastic on paper and a very logical thinker. He is extremely hard working, has never let me down and makes it an easy working relationship"
    Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2017

    "A very clever barrister and a sharp opponent."
    Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2017

    "A tenancioius advocate and someone you want on your side"
    Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2016

    "A very astute and commercail senior junior, he's someone with excellent written and oral skills"
    Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2016

    "A very able and commercial barrister who produces quality pleadings"
    Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2015

    "He's astute and tactically excellent, and has great drafting skills" 
    Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2015

    "Confident, clear, tenacious and pragmatic, he has excellent written and oral skills."
    Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2014

    "Produces quality pleadings"
    Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2014