'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
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
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
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
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
"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
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
Ian Shanks v (1) Unilever Plc (2) Unilever NV (3) Unilever UK Central Resources Ltd O/259/13
Case Summary | Judgment | 7 February 2014
The Intellectual Property Office has made public its substantive decision dismissing Professor Shanks’ long-running claim that patents resulting from an invention he made for his former employer Unilever had proved to be of “outstanding benefit” to Unilever and that he was therefore entitled to inventor’s compensation under s.40 Patents Act 1977. Daniel Alexander QC and Jonathan Hill, instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills, acted for Unilever.
Professor Shanks, while employed by Unilever in the mid 1980s, was an inventor of an electrochemical test device which used capillary action to draw a set volume of analyte into the device. Unilever patented the invention in a number of countries. Although Unilever did not manage to commercialise the invention itself, the device turned out to have significant commercial application for testing blood glucose levels in diabetics and Unilever concluded substantial licensing deals under the patents with major businesses in that field before selling the patents in 2001.
The Hearing Officer concluded that the benefit Unilever had derived from the patents was £24 million in money terms. While that was a significant sum, he found that when considered in light of Unilever’s commercial activities taken as a whole, including the size and nature of its business, it was not “outstanding”.
The Hearing Officer went on to express his views on what would have constituted a fair share of the benefit had he held it to be “outstanding”, concluding that a fair share would have been 5%.