JUVE Patent

11 South Square – UK 2023

JUVE Comment

11 South Square’s strong reputation is primarily founded on its barristers’ aptitude and visibility in telecommunication cases. This is demonstrated in multiple telecommunication trials involving technical or non-standard essential patents, such as the case between CommScope and SOLiD Technologies, where Hugo Cuddigan represents the defendant over distributed antenna systems. Junior Kathryn Pickard, who appeared for Thales against Kigen over eSim technology, is also garnering a strong reputation among clients for her approach. One client says, “Her technical ability is incredible; she is a key junior for us in every tech trial.”

Furthermore, the set has been visible for Oppo in its ongoing dispute with Nokia. On the other hand, in the ongoing case between Optis and Apple, which involves both technical and standard essential patents, the set is less visible – here, other sets specialising in FRAND and competition, such as Monckton Chambers, have had a stronger showing. Junior barrister David Ivison is the only 11 South Square barrister to appear at the first-instance court for Apple in the myriad hearings in the last twelve months. However, the ever-present Brian Nicholson, described by one instructing client as being “essential to success in FRAND and technical trials”, once again showed his nous by helping achieve Apple win against Optis at the Court of Appeal.

As ever, the set endeavours to give juniors as much of the limelight as its renowned KCs. Increasingly, this extends to work for life sciences clients; for example, Anna Edwards-Stuart – described by a competitor as “commercial and pragmatic, lovely to work with” – is acting, alongside a Hogarth Chambers barrister, for Astellas in the multifaceted dispute against Teva and Sandoz. Kyra Nezami, too, is the sole barrister for Lenovo in the FRAND dispute with InterDigital over licensing rates – this is a boost, given her relatively junior status in a set well-regarded for telecommunication disputes. According to a client, she is “an excellent new junior barrister for tech patent litigation”.

11 South Square is another set showcasing its commitment to diversity in the sector, with “safe pair of hands” Michael Silverleaf elected chair of IP Inclusive Management in 2021. On the other hand, while the set has five female junior barristers who are visible in a variety of cases, it has not yet appointed a female KC. This is in stark contrast to most other specialist-IP sets, which, aside from Three New Square, tend to have at least one senior female.

Recommended individuals

Anna Edwards-Stuart (“gets stuck in, is commercial and pragmatic, and lovely to work with”, competitor), Brian Nicholson (“simply the best in tech cases”, competitor), Iain Purvis (“a very level-headed operator; great to have in a really heated dispute”, “one of the pre-eminent KCs across all areas of technology. Incisive and a team-player”, competitors), Piers Acland (“doesn’t dismiss ideas, hands on and gets stuck into detail”, competitor), Kathryn Pickard (“forensic mind and experience”, client; “great reputation with clients”, competitor), Adam Gamsa (“solid about going into details and a pleasure to work with. He is communicative, punctual and an absolute treat for client-firm relationships”, competitor), Kyra Nezami (“a key junior for us in every tech trial”, competitor), Christopher Hall


7 KCs, 11 juniors


Court of Appeal: Apple (appellant, Brian Nicholson) against Optis over FRAND and jurisdiction; Viatris (appellant, Mark Vanhegan, Mitchell Beebe) against Neurim and Flynn over insomnia medication; Pharmathen and Aspire (appellant, Anna Edwards-Stuart) against Alcon over glaucoma and ocular hypertension treatment. High Court: Teva (claimant, Anna Edwards-Stuart) against Bayer over cancer drug sorafenib; OnePlus (defendant, Iain Purvis) against Nokia over mobile communication technology; Neo Chemicals (defendant, Hugo Cuddigan) against Anan Kasei and Rhodia over confidentiality and loss of damages; Huawei (defendant, Iain Purvis, Kyra Nezami) against IP Bridge over confidentiality and FRAND licensing; Viatris (defendant, Mark Vanhegan, Mitchell Beebe) against Neurim and Flynn over insomnia medication; Apple (defendant, Adam Gamsa) against Optis over mobile communication technology; Neo Chemicals (defendant, Hugo Cuddigan, Adam Gamsa) against Anan Kasei and Rhodia over confidentiality; Lenovo (defendant, Kyra Nezami) against InterDigital over mobile communication technology and FRAND; Viatris (defendant, Piers Acland, Adam Gamsa) against Neurim and Flynn over insomnia medication; Dr Reddy’s (Brian Nicholson, Christopher Hall) against Warner-Lambert over pharmaceutical damages claim; Apple (defendant, David Ivison) against Optis over FRAND and mobile communication technology; SOLiD Technologies (defendant, Hugo Cuddigan) against CommScope over distributed antenna systems; Bristol-Myers Squibb (defendant, Iain Purvis, Anna Edwards-Stuart) against Sandoz and Teva over blood-clot-prevention drug; Alcon (claimant, Kathryn Pickard) against AMO over cataract-surgery equipment; Carku (claimant, Hugo Cuddigan) against Noco (defendant, Adam Gamsa) over car-battery technology; Philip Morris (claimant, Tom Alkin) against Nicoventures/BAT over heat-not-burn cigarette technology; MED-EL (defendant, Brian Nicholson) against Advanced Bionics over medical devices; Astellas (defendant, Anna Edwards-Stuart) against Teva and Sandoz over overactive bladder treatment; Bos (defendant, Mitchell Beebe) against Lisa Dräxlmaier over car sun blinds; JC Bamford (claimant, Michael Silverleaf) against Manitou (defendant, Brian Nicholson, Kyra Nezami) over telehandlers; OnePlus/Oppo (defendant, Brian Nicholson) against Nokia over mobile communication technology; Cook (claimant, Iain Purvis, Tom Alkin) against Boston Scientific over endoscopic clips; Sandoz (joint claimant, Adam Gamsa) and Teva against Bristol-Myers Squibb (defendant, Piers Acland, Anna Edwards-Stuart) over blood-clot-prevention drug.