'outstanding IP chambers'
Legal 500 2008
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
'clerking team that exhibits 'perfect communication''
Legal 500 2008
'8 New Square successfully parlays its renowned IP expertise into success in the IT sector.'
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2009
Georgetown, Rochester and Loyola Universities v. UKIPO (Case C-422/10).
Case Summary | Judgment | 12 January 2011
This case, joined with the reference in Medeva v. UKIPO, is one of the most closely-watched cases in the area of SPCs. It primarily concerns the interpretation of Article 3(b) of the SPC Regulation and was referred to the ECJ by Kitchin J in 2010. It raises the question of whether a marketing authorization to a combination can support a SPC to an individual component of that combination. It also raises issues (mainly arising in the Medeva case) of the interpretation of Article 3(a). The Oral Hearing was held on 12 May 2011 by the ECJ in Luxembourg. The Advocate General is due to deliver her opinion on 13 July 2011. Daniel Alexander QC represented the applicant universities, who have made a series of applications for SPC relating to multi-component vaccines licensed to a major pharmaceutical company.