"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
'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
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 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
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
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
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
Rovi Solutions Corporation & Anor v Virgin Media Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 2301 (Pat)
Case Summary | Judgment | 14 July 2014
James Abrahams and Isabel Jamal recently appeared for the Claimants, Rovi Solutions Corporation and United Video Properties Inc., against James Mellor QC and Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC acting for the Defendants, Virgin Media Limited and others. The proceedings related to a European Patent, owned by the Claimant, for live and non-live Video on Demand services.
Mr John Baldwin QC, sitting as a deputy judge, found that the patent was invalid for obviousness based on common general knowledge and a particular piece of prior art called DAVIC. He refused the Claimant’s application to amend the claims of the patent on the basis that they did not cure the invalidity of the claims. The judge noted that the real importance of an expert witness is their ability to explain things and why they hold an opinion, not to approximate to the skilled team in question.
James Abrahams and Isabel Jamal were instructed by Powell Gilbert LLP.
James Mellor QC and Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC were instructed by Marks & Clark Solicitors LLP.