'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
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 incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
"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
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2014
"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
"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
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
Astex Therapeutics Ltd -v- Astrazeneca Ab [2017] EWHC 1442 (Ch)
Case Summary | Judgment | 21 June 2017
James Mellor QC and James Whyte appeared for the Defendant, AstraZeneca, in a case concerning payments under a collaboration agreement between AstraZeneca and the Claimant, Astex.
The terms of the agreement provided that Astex were entitled to milestone payments in certain circumstances, and to royalties from sales of any products containing a “collaboration compound”. Astex claimed that it was so entitled in relation to two candidate drugs which AstraZeneca had developed, “CD1” and “CD2”.
At issue were whether CD1 and CD2 were “collaboration compounds” pursuant to the terms of the agreement, and if not, whether AstraZeneca was entitled to recover milestone payments it had earlier made to Astex in respect of CD1. The judge also had to consider whether the agreement was capable of expiring and if so under what circumstances.
The judge found that on the correct interpretation of the agreement, neither CD1 nor CD2 constituted a “collaboration compound”. Astex was therefore not entitled to any payments from AstraZeneca. Since the payments Astex had received had been caused by AstraZeneca’s mistake as to the status of CD1, AstraZeneca was entitled to restitution of the sums paid. The agreement would expire if AstraZeneca ceased to pursue pre-clinical research referable to the Results as defined in the agreement.