'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
'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
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
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
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 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
"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
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 2014
Cinpres Gas Injection Limited -v- Melea Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 9
Case Summary | Judgment | 21 January 2008
One of the country's longest running patent cases concerning ownership of a gas assisted plastic injection moulding patent has been decided by the Court of Appeal. The appeal followed earlier litigation between the same parties that was commenced in the early 1990s and ultimately dismissed some 8 years later, due largely to the evidence given by one of the Defendant's witnesses, the inventor. Years later the inventor confessed to having given perjured evidence and new proceedings were brought. The Claimant lost at trial but was successful on appeal in January 2008. Peter Prescott QC and Jessie Bowhill acted for the Appellant.