'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
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
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
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
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 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
"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
James Duncan Kelly & Kwok Wai Chiu v GE Healthcare Ltd [2009] EWHC 181 (Pat)
Case Summary | Judgment | 11 February 2009
Andrew Lykiardopoulos appeared as junior counsel for the Defendant, GE Healthcare. The trial, in December 2008, was about whether two research scientists were entitled to compensation under s.40 of the Patents Act 19977 for the benefit that GE Healthcare had gained from the patented inventions which the researchers had developed whilst they were employees. The researchers needed to show that they were the actual devisers of the invention and that the patent (not just the invention) had been of outstanding benefit to their employer. The Judge held that the researchers were entitled to compensation under s.40 but that their share should only be 3% of the value of the benefit.