"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
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
"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 brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 2014
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'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 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
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
Unwired Planet International Ltd (Claimant) -v-(1) Huawei Technologies Co Ltd (2) Huawei Technologies (Uk) Co Ltd (Defendants) & Unwired Planet Llc (Tenth Party)
Case Summary | Judgment | 7 June 2017
Adrian Speck QC, Isabel Jamal and Thomas Jones appeared for the claimant, Unwired Planet, and Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC appeared for the defendant, Huawei, in this hearing which considered remedies, in particular the appropriate form of a “FRAND injunction”, following the Court’s earlier ruling ([2017] EWHC 711 (Pat)) on the terms of a FRAND licence.
Among the issues before the court were whether an injunction was necessary where Huawei had offered undertakings to abide by the terms of the settled FRAND license, and what the correct form of a final injunction should be, in circumstances where the court had settled a FRAND licence but Huawei had not entered into it.
The judge (Birss J) held that a final injunction should be granted, to be stayed pending appeal. A “FRAND injunction” should be in ordinary form, but with the proviso that it would cease to have effect if Huawei entered into the FRAND license the court had earlier determined. Furthermore, either party should be at liberty to apply to the court at the end of the term of the FRAND licence or if the licence ceased to have effect for any other reason.