"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
"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
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
"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
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
Generics (UK) Ltd and Arrow Generics Limited -v- H. Lundbeck A-S [2007] EWHC 1040 (Pat)
Case Summary | Judgment | 4 May 2007
A pharmaceutical patent action in March 2007, concerning the single enantiomer of the successful anti-depressant citalopram (Cipramil®), namely escitalopram (Cipralex®). Attacks were brought on the basis of anticipation, obviousness and (Biogen) insufficiency. A broad range of defences were run, including commercial success, an alleged after-discovered benefit and an argument that the current UK approach to obviousness was out of line with the other major jurisdictions, and should be amended. At trial, where Adrian Speck acted for Generics (UK) and Mark Chacksfield acted for Arrow Generics, the Claimants were successful on the two broadest, and therefore commercially most relevant, claims on the basis of the insufficiency attack. On appeal, where Michael Tappin acted for Generics UK and Mark Chacksfield for Arrow Generics, this decison was reversed. Permission to appeal has now been granted by the House of Lords.