The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
'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
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
"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
'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
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2014
"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
"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
Manitowoc Beverage Systems Limited and Malachy Scott Sr et al BL O/019/14
Case Summary | 15 January 2014
Ashton Chantrielle recently appeared for the patentee in a patent revocation action at the Intellectual Property Office.
The patent related to a system for cooling and dispensing beverage in which the beverage was cooled en route to the dispensing font. The font was also cooled to create a decorative ice effect. The claimant applied to invalidate the patent on the basis on four main grounds of revocation. The patent was held to be valid.