"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
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
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
"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
"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
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 2014
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
Shanks -v- Unilever
Case Summary | Judgment | 18 January 2017
In Shanks v Unilever [2017] EWCA Civ 2, the Court of Appeal dismissed Prof Shanks’ second tier appeal against the IPO’s rejection of his multi-million pound claim under s.40(1) of the Patents Act 1977 for inventor’s compensation against his former employer, Unilever, in respect of patents which he claimed to be of ‘outstanding benefit’ to Unilever. The patents were in for the so-called electrochemical capillary fill device. Despite some initial work, Unilever did not commercialise the technology itself. Much later it managed to licence the patents to a number of large players in the field of blood glucose testing for diabetics, bringing in approximately £24.5m in net benefit from the patents.
The Court of Appeal, agreeing with Arnold J’s judgment on Prof Shanks’ first appeal, found that there were no grounds for criticism of the Hearing Officer’s consideration of the key threshold question of whether the patents were of ‘outstanding benefit’. He performed the required multi-factorial assessment, evaluating the merits of the various points raised by the parties. He did not decide the case, as Prof Shanks contended, purely on the basis that Unilever was “too big to pay”.
Daniel Alexander QC and Jonathan Hill, instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, acted for Unilever.