JUVE Patent

8 New Square – UK 2022

JUVE Comment

Over 2021, the barristers of market-leading chambers 8 New Square continue to demonstrate their advocacy skills in some of the UK patent courts’ most notable cases, including leading FRAND and life sciences cases in Europe. Indeed, with the increasing numbers of FRAND and telecommunications cases at the UK courts, the set’s barristers are well-positioned to be instructed due to their experience in previous agenda-setting cases such as Unwired Planet vs. Huawei. Often, however, 8 New Square’s barristers appear alongside competition law-specialist barristers from other sets such as Hogarth Chambers or Brick Court Chambers, who can plug this knowledge gap to deliver an all-round offering for the client.

But the key strength of 8 New Square’s barristers lies in their flexibility. Alongside FRAND and mobile communications, some of the set’s visibility lies in complex pharmaceutical proceedings involving biosimilars and medical devices. An example is the highly-recommended Michael Tappin, who alongside James Whyte represented Roche against Insulet over diabetic insulin monitoring device. One law firm says he is “thorough, well prepared and gets down to the detail with an efficient, no-nonsense approach”.

It is also not uncommon to see 8 New Square barristers on different sides of the same case, such as in the multi-party case between Mitsubishi, Sisvel, Oppo and OnePlus over FRAND applications. In terms of representing clients involving, for example, mechanical patents, other chambers are ahead in their ability to provide the technical expertise needed. On the other hand, one of the UK’s most commercially high-profile disputes between BAT and Philip Morris involving heat-not-burn cigarette technology saw 8 New Square’s barristers represent both claimant and defendant. The highly-recommended QC Adrian Speck was successful for BAT in the second case. “A class of his own”, praises a lawyer.

The ability to handle such a diverse array of cases speaks to the different talents inherent in the set’s barristers, with juniors often as visible in the court’s cases as the well-established roster of QCs. But at the senior level, 8 New Square continues to provide a supply of highly-qualified barristers as the country’s next patent judges. In 2021, the elevation of former head of chambers James Mellor to the judicial bench means he resides alongside other highly-regarded 8 New Square alumnus, Richard Meade, at the UK High Court. The set then appointed Daniel Alexander, whom clients describe as “a fantastic legal thinker and mind”, as the new head of chambers.

Furthermore, the UK judiciary has appointed silks Michael Tappin and Charlotte May as deputy judges. Clearly, 8 New Square’s barristers are highly visible not only in their advocacy work, but in their impact on the UK judiciary and general IP barrister community. The set, which remains the largest IP barrister chambers in the UK, is also demonstrating a commitment to furthering diversity at the Bar, for example through participation in diversity initiatives such as the ‘1,000 Black Interns’ programme. It also has more female junior barristers than any other IP-centred chambers.

Recommended individuals

Adrian Speck, (“brilliant QC; has a very good overview of the case and all the relevant details. Very good strategist. Quick to spot weaknesses in other parties’ arguments”, “formidable – the best for tech patents at the moment”, both competitors), Andrew Lykiardopoulos (“great to work with, he has a good rapport with the bench”, “very good QC, intelligent and client-focused. Always has a good overview of the case and technology”, both competitors), Charlotte May (“smart and easygoing – an excellent IP all-rounder”, competitor), Daniel Alexander, (“very thorough, great strategist and great sense of humour”, “simply at the top of the Bar”, both competitors),Lindsay Lane (“practical, responsive, robust and clever”, competitor), James Mellor, Michael Tappin (“very very good, both for life sciences and also latterly for tech. Excellent with detail”, “thorough, well prepared and gets down to the detail; efficient no nonsense approach but always measured”, “one of the best around for technically complex patent disputes”, all competitors), James Abrahams, Isabel Jamal (“incomparable. Clever, good on her feet, brings people together as part of a team”, competitor), Tom Moody-Stuart


11 QCs, 18 juniors


Court of Appeal: Wyeth (appellant, Michael Tappin, Andrew Lykiardopoulos) against Merck Sharp Dohme over pneumococcal vaccines; FibroGen (appellant) and Astellas (appellant, Michael Conway) against Akebia and Otsuka over anaemia treatment; Optis (appellant, Mark Chacksfield, Thomas Jones, Henry Edwards) against Apple over FRAND licensing. High Court: Vodafone (defendant, Jaani Riordan) against TOT over jurisdiction; Coloplast (claimant, Andrew Lykiardopoulos, Maxwell Keay) against Salts Healthcare over ostomy bags; Interdigital (claimant, James Whyte, Edmund Eustace) against Lenovo (defendant, William Duncan) over telecommunications standard licensing; Latvia/MGI (defendant, Isabel Jamal) against Illumina over DNA sequencing technology; Cabo Concepts (claimant, James St. Ville) against MGA Entertainment (defendant, Tom Moody-Stuart) over children’s toys; Mitsubishi/Sisvel (claimant, Thomas Jones) against OnePlus, Oppo, Xiaomi (defendants, Daniel Alexander, William Duncan) over standard essential patents; Facebook (claimant, Jaani Riordan) against Voxer over in-app technology; Sandoz (claimant, James Abrahams) and Teva (claimant, Beth Collett) against Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb over apixaban; Mitsubishi/Sisvel (claimant, Adrian Speck, Michael Conway, Michael Tappin) against OnePlus, OPlus, Oppo, Xiaomi (defendants, Andrew Lykiardopoulos, Isabel Jamal, James Abrahams) over SEPs and patent pool licensing; Lacuna Space (defendant, Jonathan Hill) against Semtech over jurisdiction; dSPACE (defendant, Maxwell Keay) against ADD2 over electronic control units; Optis (claimant, Tom Moody-Stuart, Mark Chacksfield) against Apple (defendant, Lindsay Lane) over mobile network systems; Optis (claimant, Tom Moody-Stuart, Thomas Jones, Henry Edwards) against Apple (defendant) over FRAND licensing; Insulet (claimant, Jaani Riordan) against Roche (defendant, Michael Tappin, James Whyte) over diabetic insulin monitoring device; British American Tobacco/Nicoventures (claimant, Adrian Speck) against Philip Morris (defendant, Andrew Lykiardopoulos) over heat-not-burn cigarette technology; Interdigital (claimant, Maxwell Keay) against Lenovo over telecommunications standards licensing; Advanced Bionics (claimant, Andrew Lykiardopoulos) against Med-El Elektromedizinische over cochlear implants; Optis (claimant, Isabel Jamal, Jennifer Dixon) against Apple over FRAND and breach of confidentiality; Teva (claimant, Daniel Alexander) against Bayer over sorafenib; Nokia (claimant, Thomas Jones) against Oppo and OnePlus (defendant, Andrew Lykiardopoulos) over FRAND and jurisdiction; Warner Lambert and Pfizer (defendants, Charlotte May) against Actavis (claimant, Andrew Lykiardopoulos) and Dr Reddy’s, Teva, NHS England, Wales and Northern Ireland, NHS Scotland, Ranbaxy, et al., over compensation for cross-undertaking in damages in pregabalin trial.