"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
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
"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
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
"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
'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 (Information Technology) 2014
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
Teva, Accord, Lupin, and Generics UK trading as Mylan v Gilead Sciences Inc.
Case Summary | Judgment | 13 January 2017
Daniel Alexander QC and Lindsay Lane appeared for one claimant (Teva), Daniel Alexander QC and Jaani Riordan appeared for another claimant (Lupin), and James Whyte appeared for the defendant (Gilead), in these actions concerning Gilead’s Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) for an anti-retroviral drug combining tenofovir disoproxil and emtricibatine (marketed by Gilead as ‘Truvada’).
The claimants contended that the product the subject of the SPC was not protected by Gilead’s patent in accordance with article 3(a) of Regulation 469/2009/EC (the “SPC Regulation”). The question of compliance with article 3(a) turned on whether claim language referring to tenofovir disoproxil and “optionally other therapeutic ingredients” was enough to protect the combination .
After a review of the CJEU case law, Arnold J concluded that it was not clear whether it was sufficient for the grant of an SPC in regard to such a product that it fell within the scope of the claims of a basic patent in force, or whether something more was required. He therefore referred to the CJEU the question:
“What are the criteria for deciding whether ‘the product is protected by a basic patent in force’ in article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation?”