"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
'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 2014
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 (Information Technology) 2014
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 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
"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
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
Hospira v Genentech [2014] EWHC 1094 (Pat)
Case Summary | Judgment | 19 March 2014
In this heavy biotech action Hospira sought to revoke three of Genentech’s patents relating to the blockbuster Herceptin monoclonal antibody product, as well as seeking a declaration of non-infringement. The patents related to issues of product purity and dosage regimens, with technical evidence being given by six experts, and particularly focussed on issues of novelty, obviousness and priority. Richard Meade QC acted for the claimant, Michael Tappin QC and Mark Chacksfield acted for the defendant.