'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 2014
'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
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
"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
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2014
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
"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
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
Medimmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1234.
Case Summary | Judgment | 16 October 2012
Richard Meade QC recently appeared in the Court of Appeal in MedImmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1234. This case concerned the patentability of a technique called antibody phage display, which can be used to select antibody fragments that bind to specific antigens.
At trial, Arnold J held that the claimant’s patents were invalid on grounds of obviousness and because the claims were not entitled to priority from the relevant priority document. On appeal, Kitchin LJ (Lewison and Moore-Bick LJJ agreeing) upheld these findings and dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the trial judge made no error of principle in identifying the skilled addressee and concluding that the basic concept of phage display, although not in routine use, was part of the common general knowledge by the priority date.On the facts, the patented invention was obvious in light of a conference presentation previously given by a leading scientist in the field. The presentation depicted the essential features of the method, expressed optimism about its potential and concluded that it was worth pursuing.