"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
"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 (Information Technology) 2014
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
"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
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'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
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
'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
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Premium Aircraft Interiors Group Ltd and Premium Aircraft Interiors UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 26
Case Summary | Judgment | 21 January 2009
Richard Meade QC, Henry Ward and Jessie Bowhill appeared for the claimants, Virgin Atlantic, in the trial before Mr. Justice Lewison in November 2008. Virgin brought a claim against Premium Aircraft alleging that that Premium Aircraft Interiors, the manufacturer of its patented flat-bed seat (called 'the UCS'), had manufactured other seats or kits for other seats that infringed its patent and its unregistered design rights in the UCS, and in particular that the Solar Eclipse chair made by Premium Aircraft was based on a copy of the UCS. The defendants' case was primarily that it had not infringed the patent or the unregistered design right, but that, if the patent was infringed by a reclining seat, then the patent was invalid on the grounds of anticipation, obviousness and added matter. The Judge held that the patent was valid but that neither the patent nor the unregistered design right was infringed by Premium Aircraft's other chairs.