"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2014
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
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 2014
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 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
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
"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
SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd Case C-406/10
Case Summary | Judgment | 2 May 2012
Martin Howe QC, Robert Onslow and Isabel Jamal acted for the defendant in Case C-406/10 SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2012] 3 CMLR 4, where the Grand Chamber gave judgment answering questions about whether copyright in a computer program or in the manuals relating to it can prevent the replication of the functions performed by the program, and about the scope of the defence under Article 5(3) of Directive 91/250EEC which permits a lawful user of a computer program to investigate it to determine the ideas and principles which underlie its interface and methods of operation. The case was referred by Arnold J in SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2010] EWHC 1829 (Ch) and he subsequently gave judgment dismissing the claims of infringement in [2013] EWHC 69 (Ch).