"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 2014
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 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
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
'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
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
"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
HTC v Gemalto [2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat)
Case Summary | Judgment | 10 July 2013
James Mellor QC and Michael Tappin QC recently appeared in the High Court in HTC v Gemalto [2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat), James Mellor QC appearing for the Defendant alongside Guy Burkill QC and Miles Copeland, and Michael Tappin QC appearing for the Claimant with Ben Longstaff. The case concerned an action for revocation of two of the Defendant’s patents concerning smart-card technology, the “865 patent” and the “9062 patent”, and a counterclaim for infringement.
Regarding the 865 patent Birss J accepted the Claimant’s arguments that independent claims 1, 8, 15 and 18 were not entitled to priority, but held that claim 3 (as dependent on claim 1) was so entitled. Having decided that claims 1, 8, 15 and 18 were not entitled to priority the judge went on to find each of them obvious over an intervening publication by the patentee, but in any event claims 1 and 15 were not novel over prior art from before the priority date. Although claim 3 was held to be entitled to priority and was not obvious, it was not infringed by the Claimant’s devices.
Regarding the 9062 patent the judge held that the patent was both lacking in novelty and obvious over the prior art, but that had it been valid the Claimant’s devices would have infringed.