8 NEW SQUARE

020 7405 4321

Tom Moody-Stuart QC

 


Year of call: 1995
Year of silk: 2016

Tom Moody-Stuart was called to the bar in 1995. A member of Middle Temple, he was awarded a Queen Mother Fund Scholarship in 1994. He took a first class degree in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University specialising in microbiology, genetics and the history and philosophy of science and is a scholar of Gonville & Caius College.

Practice:

Tom's practice covers all aspects of Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment and Information Technology law. He is co-author of The Encyclopaedia of United Kingdom and European Patent Law and Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names. Comments in Chambers UK 2015 refer to a “magisterial command of trade mark and patent law, who has expertise on copyright and parallel trade issues.” and say that he “offers commercial and pragmatic advice, and has a good rapport with clients."


Example cases/Recent experience:

Tom recently represented Gilead as junior counsel in the dispute with Idenix concerning the launch of Sovaldi®, Gilead’s ground breaking hepatitis C treatment. An expedited trial brought to court in October 2014 after only 7 months, Gilead successfully invalidated the patent in suit and on grounds of insufficiency (on both classical and “plausibility” bases) and “AgrEvo” obviousness, as well as an anticipation attack which required resolution of complex chain of title issues under US law for the purposes of determining Gilead’s entitlement to priority in the prior art relied upon.The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal in July 2016; judgment awaited.

Tom represented the Hearst Corporation and Fleischer Studios in their dispute with Avela Inc, successfully protecting the former’s merchandising and licensing trade in respect of the character Betty Boop, relying on trade mark and passing off rights rather than copyright in the character.

Tom acted for Vestergaard Frandsen in the landmark confidential information case Vestergaard Frandsen v Bestnet both in respect of the liability trial and appeals and in the recent inquiry as to damages.

Tom has acted in numerous cases concerning Norwich Pharmacal relief including RFU v Viagogo in the Supreme Court. He advises both ISPs and content providers, and is regularly consulted by film companies

Tom has appeared before the CJEU and General Court in trade mark matters.

Patents

Tom is co-author of The Encyclopaedia of United Kingdom and European Patent Law. Cases include:

Idenix v Gilead July 2016 Court of Appeal, trial July 2014

Tom represented Gilead as junior counsel in the dispute with Idenix concerning the launch of Sovaldi®, Gilead’s ground breaking hepatitis C treatment. An expedited trial brought to court in October 2014 after only 7 months, the case focussed primarily on the invalidity attack on Idenix patent on grounds of insufficiency (on both classical and “plausibility” bases) and “AgrEvo” obviousness, as well as an anticipation attack which required resolution of complex chain of title issues under US law for the purposes of determining Gilead’s entitlement to priority in the prior art relied upon.

Quadrant Holdings v Quadrant Bio Resources and Roser

Biotechnology patent concerning the storage of sensitive molecules through the use of sugar. Dispute as to consequences of Development agreement between defendant and claimant. Issues of passing off, patent validity (and infringement) and breach of contract. Junior Counsel for the defendant, responsible for all patent aspects of case.

Gore v Geox

Acted for the defendant, in respect of an unsuccessful invalidity claim by Gore and a claim for decelerations of non-infringement in respect of 2 product descriptions, on of which was granted.

Tamglass v Louyang

Patent action concerning glass bending and tempering equipment. Considerations of scope of relief, costs orders as against parties playing dormant role in litigation, availability of damages. Counsel for Defendant.

Stanelco v Bioprogress

Patent entitlement and misuse of confidential information claim. Junior counsel for claimant.

SEB v Delonghi

Patent action concerning deep fat fryers. Junior counsel for the Claimant.

CIL v Vitrashop

Patent action concerning merchandising and shelving systems. Junior counsel for Defendant. Prior use by third party relied on in counterclaim. Difficult issues of proof of prior user. Threats counterclaim.

JR Crompton Ltd v Papierfabrik Schoeller & Hoesch Gmbh & Co KG

EPO Opposition hearing, acting for the applicant, in respect of a patent application for multi-ply tea bag paper.

Auchincloss v Animal Veterinary Supplies*

Patent action concerning virucidal disinfectant for agricultural purposes. Chemical composition patent, dispute as to effect of numerical limits in claimed composition. Junior counsel for defendants. (First instance & Court of Appeal).


Horne v Reliance*

Patent action concerning thermostatic mixer valves. Junior counsel for the defendant. Issues of insufficiency and obviousness. Defendant successfully argued that the claimed invention was both obvious and insufficiently described in the patent specification.

Xylum v Gorog

Action relating to medical diagnostic patent licence agreement. Junior counsel for the Claimant. Question as to whether improvements and modifications of licensed products were invented by the first and second defendants or their daughter (also a defendant). Serious allegations of fraud and deceit made and proved against all defendants.

Boegli-Gravures SA v Darsail-ASP Ltd 

Pat Test purchases. The liability of directors. Locations to which websites are directed where no specific country is indicated. Acted for the defendants.

 

 

  • What the Directories Say
  • "He is very quick on the uptake, able to provide very comprehensive advice and makes great suggestions on how to proceed." "He is very good on the strategy. He's a street fighter and is good for bad-tempered squabbles."
    Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2017

    "He has an impressive grasp of the detail in a case"
    Chambers & Partners (Information technology)) 2017

    "He is very good and definitely dereved to take silk"
    Chambers & Partners (Media & Entertainment) 2017

    "He has exceptional technical skills and is a master strategist."
    Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2017

    "Very knowledgeable on trade mark and copyright matters"
    Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2016

    "He's impressive, has good manners and a good logical mind." "He is intelligent, charming, easy to work with and knows his stuff"
    Chambers & Partners (Media & Entertainment) 2016

    "He is great to work with, as he rolls his sleeves up and gets on with it. He also gets on very well with the clients"
    Chambers & Partners (Information technology)) 2016

    "If you can get him, he is first-rate. He's technically excellent but also very commercial" "He's really quite impressive and a thoroughly nice guy"
    Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2016

    "A good team player who provides sound, no-nonsense advice"
    Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2015

    "Offers commercial and pragmatic advice, and has a good rapport with clients" " He's very impressive and very enthusiastic in the way he goes about his work" 
    Chambers & Partners (Media & Entertainment) 2015

    " An effective, very thorough advocate who is able to grasp the main points in a case" " Very calm and considered, he is not prone to hyperbole or overstating his points and is popular with clients and judges" 
    Chambers & Partners (Information technology)) 2015

    " He's very bright and has an excellent hands-on style" 
    Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2015