"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
'Top drawer IP set.'
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
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 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
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
Actavis -v- Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48
Case Summary | Judgment | 12 July 2017
Daniel Alexander QC, Richard Meade QC and Isabel Jamal appeared for the Claimant/Respondent, Actavis, in this landmark case in which the Supreme Court changed the way in which UK courts consider patent infringement by ‘equivalents’. The Supreme Court, allowing the appeal and finding that Actavis’s product both directly and indirectly infringed, substantially re-cast the English courts’ approach to equivalents, pursuant to the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 of the European Patent Convention providing a potentially much broader scope of claim.
Giving the judgment of the Court, Lord Neuberger said that, in considering infringement it was necessary to address two questions: first whether there was infringement of any claim as a matter of ordinary interpretation; if the answer to the first question was ‘no’, the court should then consider whether the alleged infringement nevertheless varied from the invention in a way or ways that were immaterial. He set out a re-formulated version of the so-called “Improver” or “protocol questions” which he said should act as guidelines for the court when considering the second question. It marks a move away from the widely-adopted approach in Amgen.
The judgment also addresses the circumstances in which the court may have regard to material in the patent prosecution history in determining the scope of claims.
The case is likely to be the leading case on scope of protection for some years and its application and impact is currently widely debated in the UK and internationally.