"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
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
'Top drawer IP set.'
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
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 2014
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
Actavis Group HF v Eli Lilly & Co [2012] EWHC 3316 (Pat)
Case Summary | Judgment | 12 December 2012
Richard Meade QC acted for the successful claimant in Actavis Group HF v Eli Lilly & Co [2012] EWHC 3316 (Pat). This is an important decision which recognises that English courts have jurisdiction to hear claims for infringement of multiple foreign designations of a European patent.
The defendant applied to strike out or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens. Mr Justice Arnold held that the defendant had validly consented to service of the claimant’s claim for declarations of non-infringement.
Validity was not disputed and the Brussels I Regulation did not apply to the defendant, which was an American company. Moreover, the Court had jurisdiction to hear the claim with respect to both the United Kingdom and the French, German, Italian and Spanish designations of the defendant’s patent in the same action. The Court accepted that there was no more appropriate forum to hear the claim.