'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
"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
"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 brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 2014
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2014
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
'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
"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
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
Hospira AG v Novartis UK Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 583
Case Summary | Judgment | 4 June 2013
Adrian Speck QC and James Whyte recently appeared in the Court of Appeal in Hospira AG v Novartis UK Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 583, Adrian Speck QC appearing with Tom Mitcheson for the respondent and James Whyte appearing with Justin Turner QC for the appellant. The case concerned an appeal from a decision of Birss J refusing to grant an interim injunction pending appeal where the appellant’s Patents, for the use of zoledronic acid in the treatment of osteoporosis, had been found invalid at first instance by Arnold J.
In his judgment, with which the other Lord Justices agreed, Floyd LJ summarised the principles to be applied to the grant of interim injunctions pending appeal, and then held that Birss J should not have found that the decision on the merits affected the balance of convenience. He held that once Birss J had decided that the appeal had real prospects of success he should have moved to the balance of convenience, where on the fact of the case, the appellant succeeded.
Accordingly the Court of Appeal granted the interim injunction pending appeal.