8 NEW SQUARE

020 7405 4321

Richard Meade QC

 


Year of call: 1991
Year of silk: 2008

Richard Meade QC practises across all areas of intellectual property, information technology, and media and entertainment. He has the greatest experience in technically complex patent disputes (frequently multi-jurisdictional), contractual and commercial disputes involving technology, and disputes involving the music business.

Richard took silk in 2008. “Big cases suit him” (Chambers & Partners) and he has an aptitude for handling large amounts of technical information, which he combines with the skills for working as part of a large team: “he treats all members of a team exceptionally well” (also Chambers & Partners).
His skills as an advocate are recognised by the legal directories. The Legal 500 (2015) says “"A formidable advocate with a huge intellect; not someone you want on the other side", Chambers & Partners (2016) says “He has a very good delivery in court. Judges like his combination of charm and dynamism", and “a great cross-examiner”.
Richard appears regularly in the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the European Patent Office. He has also appears in international arbitrations, and has represented clients in the Irish High Court in Dublin.
Richard is a Recorder, a Deputy High Court Judge, and a CEDR accredited mediator.

Richard was awarded 'IP Silk of the Year' by Chambers & Partners in October 2015.
 

Patents

Patent litigation is the biggest focus of Richard’s practice, and he has built an impressive track record in major patent cases, including disputes over pharmaceutical, chemical and electronic patents. Recent highlights in the High Court and/or Court of Appeal include Hospira v. Genentech, clearing the way for generic Herceptin; Unwired Planet v. Samsung and Huawei concerning FRAND and competition defences in telecoms litigation; Actavis v. Warner Lambert, the pregabalin litigation; Actavis v. Lilly, the first action for non-infringement of foreign patents to be tried in the UK; Actavis v. Boehringer and Actavis v. Sanofi, both references to the CJEU concerning SPCs; Nokia v IPCom, Nokia v. InterDigital and Apple v. HTC, all long-running cases over multiple highly complex telecoms patents; Virgin v Contour, the much-publicised case over Virgin’s ‘lie flat’ seats; Abbott v Evysio, an unusual dispute over medical devices (stents). Other career highlights include LG Philips v Tatung and Viewsonic, an important case in the Court of Appeal on the law of added matter; Ranbaxy v Warner-Lambert, a Court of Appeal case concerning the patents for Lipitor, which was the world’s best-selling prescription medicine; and Kirin-Amgen v TKT, a House of Lords case that is now the leading authority on the proper approach to patent infringement.

Hospira v. Cubist (High Court 2016)

Multiple-patent litigation over generic competition for the antibiotic daptomycin. Parallel litigation in the USA.

EMGS v. PGS (High Court 2016)

Highly complex patent litigation over oilfield exploration methods. Parallel litigation in Norway.


Actavis v Warner Lambert (High Court 2015, Court of Appeal 2016)

Patent litigation over generic competition to Warner Lambert’s Pregabalin product. Issues over sufficiency, patent amendment, infringement of second medical use claims.
Unwired Planet v Samsung, Huawei, Google (High Court, 2014-present)
Multiple patent telecoms litigation over 2G, 3G and 4G patents, FRAND and competition issues. Multiple parallel litigation.


Rovi v Virgin (High Court 2013, Court of Appeal 2016)

Patent action and appeal concerning set top boxes. Multiple parallel litigation.

Hospira v Genentech (High Court and Court of Appeal, 2014- present)

Series of patent actions and appeals concerning Hospira’s clearing the way for a generic trastuzumab (Herceptin) product. Parallel litigation in Norway and the USA.


Actavis v Lilly (High Court and Court of Appeal, 2012-present)

Patent litigation concerning UK, French, Italian and Spanish patents for the cancer drug pemetrexed. Two trials, two hearings in the Court of Appeal. Issues concerning jurisdiction over foreign patents, personal jurisdiction over the patentee, patent claim construction, file wrapper estoppel and secondary infringement. To be heard in the Supreme Court in 2017. Parallel litigation in Germany and Switzerland.

Actavis v Boehringer (High Court and CJEU 2013-2014)

SPC litigation involving a reference to the CJEU over combination products.


Microsoft v Motorola (High Court 2012, Court of Appeal 2013)

Patent action concerning Motorola’s assertion of a pager patent against Microsoft’s push email service. Parallel litigation in Germany.


Molnlycke v BSN (High Court 2012)

Patent action concerning wound dressings. Parallel litigation in Sweden.
Regeneron v Genentech (High Court 2012)
Patent action concerning monoclonal antibody treatment for macular degeneration.


Actavis v Sanofi (High Court and CJEU 2012-2013)
SPC litigation involving a reference to the CJEU and now a leading authority on SPCs for combination products.


Apple v HTC (High Court 2012)

Patent trial concerning several of Apple’s smartphone patents. Multiple parallel actions.

Sandvik v Kennametal (High Court, 2011)

Patent trial concerning advanced coatings for machine tool bits. Now a widely cited authority on the law of insufficiency. Parallel proceedings in Germany.


JCB’s Patent (EPO Technical Board of Appeal, 2011)

An appeal to the TBA over a patent for hydraulic systems for telehandlers.


MedImmune v Novartis (High Court 2011, Court of Appeal 2012)

Patent litigation about phage display. Now a leading authority on the duties of expert witnesses and legal representatives in patent cases.


Abbott v Medinol (2010 and 2011, High Court and High Court of Ireland)

Patent litigation over coronary stents. Richard appeared in the UK and (as lead advocate on the patent issues) in Dublin.


Schutz v. Werit (2010 to 2013, High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court)

A patent case which is now the leading recent authority on infringement by reconditioning and use of spare parts. Parallel trade mark proceedings (see below).


Nokia v IPCom (2008 to 2012)

A wide ranging patent dispute concerning the validity and essentiality of multiple telephone patents. It raises complex issues of validity and infringement, essentiality and fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

Virgin v Contour (High Court 2008; Court of Appeal 2009, Supreme Court 2013)

This patent and design right dispute concerned lie flat seats for business class air travel, and in
particular Virgin’s UCS seating system.

Kos Life Sciences (2009 EPO Enlarged Board)

Richard appeared before an Enlarged Board of appeal of the European Patent Office. This decision concerned an important point in European patent law, concerning the novelty of dosage regimes.

WG Gore v Geox (High Court, 2008; Court of Appeal 2009)

Patent trial concerning two patents for “breathable” shoes with holes in the soles. It progressed
to the Court of Appeal during 2009.

Armour v LeisureTech (High Court, 2008)

This patent trial concerned distributed audio systems.


Cooper Cameron’s Patent, Opposition by Kvaerner (EPO opposition division, 2005 and Technical Board of Appeal, 2008)

Opposition to European patent concerning oil well equipment, acting for the Patentee. · JCB’s Patents (EPO Opposition Division and Technical Board of Appeal, 2006-present). Various related
disputes, hearings and filings concerning JCB’s patents for ride-smoothing systems in telehandlers.

Elan Pharma’s Patent (EPO Technical Board of Appeal 2007)

Appeal in an EPO opposition concerning a pharmaceutical patent. The main issue was added
matter.

Samsung v Ericsson (High Court 2007)

Patent dispute concerning validity and infringement of Samsung and Ericsson mobile telephone patents as well as FRAND issues under the ETSI IPR policy and European competition defences.

Abbott v Evysio (High Court 2006-2008, EPO Opposition Division)

Patent dispute concerning the validity and infringement of 3 patents held by Evysio and alleged to be infringed by Abbott’s cardiovascular Vision and Xience stents.

Nokia v Interdigital (High Court 2005-8)

Unusual and complex patent dispute concerning (in addition to questions of patent validity) whether Interdigital’s patents are “essential” under the industry ETSI standards for mobile telephones, and whether the Court has jurisdiction to decide that question.

LG Philips v Tatung and Viewsonic (Patents County Court, 2005, Court of Appeal 2006)

A patent action concerning mounting systems for LCD displays. Now an important authority on the law of added matter.

Hoffman La Roche v Chiron (High Court 2006)
A patent and validity and infringement action concerning patents and SPCs relating to the AIDS drug Fuzeon which was developed by Roche but in respect of which Chiron held an SPC. The action settled just before trial.

Ranbaxy v Warner-Lambert (High Court 2005 Court of Appeal 2006)

A patent action concerning Warner- Lambert’s (now part of Pfizer) patents for Lipitor, a cholesterol-inhibiting drug which is the world’s bestselling prescription medicine.

Ivax v Organon (High Court, 2006)

A patent action concerning formulations of the prescription drug Tibolone.
Sara Lee’s Patent, Opposition by Kraft Foods (EPO opposition division, 2005)
Opposition to a European patent concerning coffee machines, acting for the Opponent. The patent was substantially cut down.

CAT v Abbott (High Court, 2004-5)

A major patent licence dispute, acting for the Claimant, CAT, against a major US pharmaceutical company. The dispute concerned the offset provisions of a licence agreement between the parties, and the difference between their rival positions represented some tens of millions of dollars per year for the remaining life of the patents. CAT was wholly successful and Abbott was refused permission to appeal.

Kirin-Amgen v TKT (High Court 2001, Court of Appeal, 2002; House of Lords 2004)

Acting for TKT, the defendant, in a patent action relating to the biotechnological production of the hormone erythropoietin (EPO), used in the treatment of anaemia. The case addressed important legal issues, including the proper approach to patent infringement, approach to applying the principles of the law of insufficiency in Biogen, the relationship of the scope of protection of claims to the technical contribution of a patent and the construction and validity of product-by-process. Hearings after the judgment at trial concerned “long arm” extraterritorial relief, and amendment of the patent in suit. TKT was wholly successful in the House of Lords, winning on infringement and securing revocation of the claims alleged to be infringed. The case is now the leading authority on the proper approach to patent infringement.


Celltech v MedImmune (High Court 2002, 2004 and 2005, Court of Appeal 2003)

A major patent licensing dispute about monoclonal antibodies, acting for the Defendant, MedImmune, from whom Celltech claimed royalties under a licence agreement. MedImmune’s liability under the agreement depended on the application of the US and German laws of patent infringement, including file wrapper estoppel and infringement by equivalence. MedImmune defeated the first two claims and the continuing litigation settled before judgment in the third.

Affymetrix v Multilyte (High Court, 2004)

This biotechnology patent litigation concerned DNA micro arrays – the same technology as in OGT v. Affymetrix (below). Affymetrix sued for a declaration of noninfringement and to revoke Multilyte’s patents. Multilyte applied for a stay of the proceedings pending an action in Germany, which Affymetrix successfully resisted, and Multilyte submitted to revocation of its patents shortly
before trial.

Dendron and EV3 v University of California and Boston Scientific (High Court, 2003 to 2004)

A patent dispute concerning intracranial catheters. Numerous interlocutory applications concerning the use of UK disclosure in the European Patent Office and in proceedings in the Netherlands and Germany, as well as a preliminary issue about the construction of the provisions of the Patents Act 1977 relating to exclusive licences. Also involved taking oral evidence by cross
examination in Germany under the recent Regulation on taking evidence abroad.

Intel v Via (High Court, 2003)

A major patent action concerning validity and infringement of 3 of Intel’s CPU patents. The action settled after the trial but before judgement.

Pharmacia v Merck (High Court 2000, Court of Appeal 2001)

Patent action relating to COX-2 inhibitor anti-inflammatory drugs. The case involved extensive experiments directed to insufficiency and to infringement (the latter relating to tautomeric forms of
the alleged infringing product). Legal issues included the suitability of the Improver questions for different types of infringement and the identification of “the invention” of the patent for the purposes of assessing sufficiency.

Pfizer’s patent (EPO Opposition Division, 2001)
A hearing in the European Patent Office against a number of opponents, concerning the same Viagra-related patent as below.

Novo v DSM (High Court 2000)

This action for revocation of a patent held by DSM protecting an enzyme called phytase involved consideration of whether particular protein purification and sequencing steps and techniques of DNA cloning were obvious.

Pfizer v Lilly Icos (High Court 2000, Court of Appeal 2001)

This patent action concerned a Pfizer patent relating to the famous drug Viagra, which included second medical use claims and claims which covered compounds defined only by their mechanism of action.

Chiron Corp (EPO, 2000) Appeal to the Technical Board of Appeal

Hepatitis C patent. This was a five day hearing before the TBA bringing to a conclusion the lengthy HCV litigation in Europe. There were multiple opponents and numerous complex legal and scientific issues.

Celltech and Genentech’s Patents, opposition by Eli Lilly (EPO, 2000) Technical Board of Appeal

Genentech’s and Celltech’s humanised antibody patents. Another multi-party hearing of several days’ duration concerning the law of prior disclosure, and complex technical issues concerning humanized antibodies.

Oxford Gene Technology Ltd. v Affymetrix Inc. (2000, High Court, Court of Appeal)

This was biotechnology patent litigation concerning DNA micro arrays – a startling new technology combining the disciplines of molecular biology and silicon chip manufacture. Two issues went to the Court of Appeal – whether Affymetrix had a licence under the patent in suit, and the obligations of OGT to give disclosure of privileged material in seeking to amend its patent. This is now the leading case on the latter subject.

Chiron v Evans Medical (1996 to 1998, High Court and EPO, Technical Board of Appeal)

High Court action and Opposition concerning pertussis vaccines.

Chiron v. Organon and Chiron v Murex, numbers 1-14 (1992 to 1996)

Biotechnology patent litigation concerning Hepatitis C Virus. Numerous contested hearings in the Patents Court, Court of Appeal and House of Lords including a full trial on validity and infringement, opposed amendment of the patent in suit, "Euro" defences, res judicata, a "public interest" defence and inquiries as to damages.

  • What the Directories Say
  • A very senior patent barrister and an excellent performer. He is level headed and cool under pressure." "One of the pre-eminent patent barristers in the UK right now. He is just incredibly calm, thoughtful and strategic"
    Chambers and Partners (Intellectual Property) 2017

    "Very quick, very smart and a lethal opponent." "He's massively talented and an intellectually awesome person to work with"
    Chambers and Partners (Information Technology) 2017

    "The perfect combination of being incredibly bright, an outstanding advocate and a fantastic guy to work with."
    Legal 500 (Intellectual property) 2017

    "One of the leading patent silks at the Bar"
    Legal 500 (Intellectual property) 2016

    "He is very much in demand"
    Legal 500 (Media and entertainment) 2016

    "He has a very good delivery in court. Judges like his combination of charm and dynamism"
    Chambers and Partners (Media & Entertainment) 2016

    "He is very good, very tenacious and very pointed in his advice. He's also a great cross-examiner"
    Chambers and Partners (Information Technology) 2016

    "He is just incredibly sharp-he cuts through it all and undertsands what the point is before you even realise, even though you're the one explaining it to him"
    Chambers and Partners (Intellectual Property) 2016

    "A formidable advocate with a huge intellect; not someone you want on the other side"
    Legal 500 (Media and entertainment) 2015

    "He has a low-key style but shows exceptional judgement and is a very effective cross-examiner.Very determined, he never gives up and can make an argument from a difficult position"
    Chambers and Partners (Intellectual Property) 2015

    " A brilliant barrister who can turn his hand to anything"
    Chambers and Partners (Media & Entertainment) 2015

    "When it comes to a technology case his is a name that would leap almost immediately to mind" "Super-clever, he's always on top of everything and is very, very good as an advocate. He has a way of putting things across very effectively." " He shows incredible clarity of thought"
    Chambers and Partners (Information Technology) 2015

    " He is calm and considered. and leads the new crop of silks"
    Legal 500 (Intellectual property) 2015