"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2014
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 2014
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
"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 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
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
KCI Licensing Inc & Ors v Smith & Nephew Plc & Ors (2012)
Case Summary | 1 March 2012
Henry Ward, representing KCI Licensing Inc, successfully applied for summary judgment on an issue in an enquiry for damages. The Respondent, having already admitted in the defence that the applicant was the registered proprietor of the patent in question, claimed that the applicant was not the patent owner. It was held that the applicant was the proprietor of the patent and that it was too late for the Defendants to challenge such rights.