The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
"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
"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
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 2014
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
'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
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
"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
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
Accord Healthcare Limited v Research Corporation Technologies [2017] EWHC 2711 (Ch)
Case Summary | Judgment | 6 November 2017
In this case William Duncan appeared for the Claimant, led by Piers Acland QC of 11 South Square.
This action related to a patent for lacosamide; an anti-epileptic drug. Accord Healthcare Limited sought to invalidate the SPC protecting lacosamide, on grounds that the patent was invalid.
Accord challenged the entitlement of the patent to claim priority from a March 1996 priority document, and argued that the patent is obvious based on two items of prior art in conjunction with supplementary information obtained on an obvious literature search.
Birss J was asked to decide under US law, whether the inventor had correctly assigned the rights to the invention, including the right to claim priority. Accord contended that only the legal title and not the beneficial title had been assigned to the Defendant before the filing date of the patent. Birss J indicated his concern with the current state of the law relating to successor in title priority, but nonetheless continued to follow the KCI line of cases. The judge found that the Defendant was a bone fide purchaser for value under US law, and thus took title free of any equitable interests.
In relation to obviousness, the judge had no issue that an obvious literature search would be conducted and the materials reviewed. However he considered that even in light of the further materials turned up, there was not a sufficient expectation of success for the patent to be obvious.