'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
"8 New Square is undoubtedly one of the leading sets for trade mark and copyright cases within the media and entertainment sphere, so much so that stablemates here frequently find themselves pitted against each other in major cases."
Chambers & Partners (Media & Entertainment) 2014
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2014
"Fantastic roster of talent" and recommended for being "very modern, forward-thinking and providing sound commercial advice" as well as offering instructing solicitors "a very broad skill set in the soft IP space."
Chambers & Partners 2017
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 2014
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
Cephalon v Orchid & Mylan
Case Summary | Judgment | 24 June 2011
Michael Tappin QC and Adrian Speck acted for the defendants in successfully resisting an application by the claimant patentees for an interim injunction to prevent launch of a generic modafinil product. In recent years, patentees in pharmaceutical cases have generally succeeded in obtaining interim injunctions to prevent generic launch, but Michael and Adrian persuaded Mr Justice Floyd that the balance of convenience lay against the grant of an injunction: [2010] EWHC 2945. Michael and Adrian then acted for Mylan at the trial of the claim. Mr Justice Floyd held that while the claim language literally covered the generic product, the skilled person would understand the claims differently, such that the generic product did not infringe. He also held that the claims were obvious in the light of the skilled person's common general knowledge: [2011] EWHC 1591.