"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2014
'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
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
'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
"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 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
"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
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
Armour Group v Leisuretech Electronics [2008] EWHC 2797 (Pat)
Case Summary | Judgment | 14 November 2008
Daniel Alexander QC and James Abrahams represented the Claimant Armour and Richard Meade QC and Robert Smith represented Leisuretech Electronics in the trial held in October 2008. Armour sought revocation of Leisuretech's patent for a system for the provision of stereo sound to different rooms from a single source using a particular type of 'Cat 5 cable'. Armour claimed that the patent was obvious over the common general knowledge. It was accepted by both parties that if the patent was valid then Leisuretech would be liable for infringement. The Judge held that the patent was invalid as it lacked an inventive step.