'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 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
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
"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 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
"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
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
Lizzano Partitions (UK) Limited v Interiors Manufacturing Limited [2013] EWPCC 12
Case Summary | Judgment | 11 April 2013
Isabel Jamal recently appeared before His Honour Judge Birss QC in the Patents County Court in Lizzanno Partitions (UK) Limited v Interiors Manufacturing Limited [2013] EWPCC 12. She acted for the patentee who succeeded in defending an action for a declaration of non-infringement (in relation to which it brought a counterclaim for infringement) and a claim that the patent was invalid for lack of novelty over a patent application, obviousness over the common general knowledge, added matter and insufficiency. The patent concerned a gasket used as a seal between glass sheets in interior glass partitions.
In relation to the added matter attack (that the application as filed did not disclose the shape of the gasket “when not in use”) he accepted Ms Jamal’s submission that the specification described the shape of the gasket per se, albeit that the figures portrayed the gasket when in use. He rejected the novelty attack and, in rejecting the obviousness attack, held that that the question of “why was it not done before” did not have a good answer in this case. Finally he rejected all of the insufficiency arguments, some on the basis of rejecting the Claimant’s construction of the claims (recognising that the patent must be read by a mind willing to understand not a mind desirous of misunderstanding) and others on the basis that the patent satisfied the test in Kirin Amgen.
The judge held that claims 1, 6 and 7 of the patent were infringed by partitions made using the Claimant’s gasket, and that the gasket itself constituted a means essential under s.60(2) of the Patents Act.