"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
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 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
"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
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2014
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
(1) Gareth Kevin Glass (2) Adrian Charles Roberts (3) Nigel Davison v Freyssinet Limited [2015] EWHC 2972 (IPEC)
Case Summary | Judgment | 3 November 2015
Lindsay Lane was instructed by Dehns on behalf of the Defendant, Freyssinet, in this claim for patent infringement and counterclaim for revocation in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court.
The Claimants were joint proprietors of a patent which claimed a system for protecting steel rebars in reinforced concrete. The Claimants alleged that various acts of the Defendant were infringing, including the provision of the Defendant’s own concrete protection system and the production of certain documents by the Defendant at the request of one of the Claimants. The Defendant sought revocation of the patent for lack of novelty and inventive step.
HHJ Hacon held there was no liability on the Defendant’s part, as the principal method claim of the patent was valid but not infringed, and the principal system claim was invalid for lack of inventive step.