"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
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
'Top drawer IP set.'
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
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 2014
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
"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
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 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
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
HTC Corporation v Gemalto SA [2014] EWCA Civ 1335 (22 October 2014)
Case Summary | Judgment | 22 October 2014
James Mellor QC led Gemalto S.A.’s legal team in their appeal regarding construction of a claim in an allegedly infringed microcontroller patent (‘865’). Michael Tappin QC appeared as lead counsel for HTC.
At first instance, Birss J had held that 865 was partially invalid and HTC had not infringed. Applying the Kirin Amgen principles, Lord Justice Floyd held that a narrower construction of the term “microcontroller” in claim 1 of 865 was required. The use made in the prior art did not support a broad construction and the specification pointed to a narrow construction. “Microcontroller” therefore meant a single chip with a CPU and all memory resources on board. As such the HTC devices were not infringing.
Exercising the Medimmune principles, a disentitlement to priority attack on claim 3 of 865, which would have invalidated the patent if successful, failed. The priority document did provide sufficient disclosure to support the relevant claim in light of the “mental backdrop” that the skilled person would have when interpreting a priority document.
James Mellor QC was instructed by King & Wood Mallesons LLP.
Michael Tappin QC was instructed by Powell Gilbert LLP.