JUVE Patent

Rankings UK 2023

8 New Square – UK 2023

JUVE Comment

This year, the UK court’s two headline FRAND and jurisdictional cases in InterDigital against Lenovo, and Optis against Apple, have both involved extensive appearances from this market-leading set on the side of both claimant and defendant. 8 New Square is also continuing to pair its patent expertise with the competition and chancery-driven knowledge of fellow barristers from sets such as Brick Court, with the two sets frequently appearing together for parties in telecommunication litigation.

Highly visible and recommended barristers such as Adrian Speck and Mark Chacksfield tend to be involved in most cases on the telecommunication side, highlighting a clear expertise at the top echelons of the firm – “a pre-eminent KC across all areas of technology with a specialism in FRAND, he’s forceful and incisive” says one competitor about Adrian Speck, while another competitor notes that Mark Chacksfield has “a comprehensive grasp of complex technologies”. However, 8 New Square’s juniors continue to make their presence known alongside their more senior colleagues. Last year on JUVE Patent’s ‘Ones to Watch’ list, Isabel Jamal is often singled out for her knowledge and aptitude in technically complex litigation. “An excellent senior junior; one of the next patent silks,” says a competitor.

At the intersection between technical patents, life sciences and medical devices, the 8 New Square barristers continue to make a solid showing. For both claimant and defendant, the set has appeared in all medical devices cases at the High Court in 2022 so far, indicating that the barristers have a solid grasp of the issues which are likely to shape the future of patent litigation. On the senior side, Michael Tappin KC in particular is present for clients, taking instructions from clients Cook and AMO in separate cases involving endoscopic clips and cataract-surgery equipment, respectively.

In June 2022, the set experienced a boost to its senior ranks with renowned KC Justin Turner moving from Three New Square to join the 8 New Square set. While a blow for his former tenancy, following his move Turner again appeared for innovative pharmaceutical company Teva against Bristol-Myers Squibb. 8 New Square also continues to lead in its championing of diversity in the judiciary and beyond, with its participation in programmes such as #1000BlackInterns, as well as being partner and sponsor of Bridging the Bar.

Furthermore, amid a sea of male patent judges at the UK courts, and after her appointment last year, renowned female KC Charlotte May finally appeared as a deputy judge in a damages enquiry between Fiberweb and Geosynthetics. Alongside other former KCs James Mellor and Richard Meade, who in the past two years have moved to the High Court judicial bench full-time, it is clear that the reputation of 8 New Square’s barristers precedes them.

Recommended individuals

Adrian Speck (“one of the pre-eminent KCs across all areas of technology with a specialism in FRAND. Forceful and incisive”, competitor), Andrew Lykiardopoulos (“a fabulous team player. He listens to the views and ideas of the team and distils them down into winning arguments, whether the hearing is patent-related, FRAND, jurisdiction or something else”, competitor), Charlotte May (“excellent IP all-rounder”, competitor), Daniel Alexander (“great for all tech cases”, competitor), Lindsay Lane (“she is a stand-out star and has first-class presentation to court. Pleasure to work with”, competitor), James Abrahams (“James has impressed since his elevation to KC and has a very bright future”, competitor), Isabel Jamal (“brilliant, extremely tenacious and creative lawyer and advocate. A star”, client; “one to watch, she has great advocacy and commands a room with friendly self-confidence. Excellent grasp of all technologies, but is making a name for herself in FRAND disputes”, competitor), Justin Turner (“Justin shows the kind of thorough vetting of a case that allows him to go into court robustly”, competitor), Mark Chacksfield (“excellent in all areas and comfortably one of the best of his generation at the bar”, competitor), Michael Conway (“easy to work with, gets the point quickly, adds value and brings a good relationship”, competitor), Michael Tappin (“thorough, well prepared and gets down to the detail; efficient no-nonsense approach but always measured”, competitor)

Team

12 KCs, 18 juniors

Clients

Court of Appeal: Optis (respondent, Mark Chacksfield, Thomas Jones, Henry Ward) against Apple over SEPs and FRAND; Optis (respondent, Thomas Jones, Tom Moody-Stuart) against Apple (appellant, Lindsay Lane) over SEPs and mobile communication technology; Optis (respondent, Thomas Jones, Tom Moody-Stuart) against Apple (appellant, Lindsay Lane) over SEPs and FRAND; Neurim and Flynn (respondents, Andrew Lykiardopoulos) against Viatris over insomnia medication; Alcon (respondent, Lindsay Lane, William Duncan) against Pharmathen and Aspire over glaucoma and ocular hypertension treatment; Nokia (respondent, Edmund Eustace) against Oppo/OnePlus (appellant, Daniel Alexander) over jurisdiction and FRAND. High Court: Optis (claimant, Isabel Jamal, Jennifer Dixon) against Apple over alleged breach of confidentiality; Teva (claimant, Daniel Alexander) against Bayer over cancer drug sorafenib; Nokia (claimant, Thomas Jones) against Oppo/OnePlus (defendant, Andrew Lykiardopoulos over mobile communication; Optis (claimant, James Abrahams, James Whyte, Michael Conway) against Apple (defendant, Lindsay Lane) over mobile communication; InterDigital (claimant, Mark Chacksfield, Thomas Jones, Edmund Eustace) against Lenovo (defendant, Daniel Alexander, William Duncan) over FRAND; InterDigital (claimant, Adrian Speck, Isabel Jamal) against Lenovo (defendant, Daniel Alexander, William Duncan) over FRAND; Lenovo (claimant, Adrian Speck, Mark Chacksfield, Edmund Eustace) against Lenovo (defendant, James Abrahams, William Duncan) over FRAND; Optis (claimant, Isabel Jamal, Thomas Jones, Jennifer Dixon) against Apple over application for FRAND disclosure; Cook (claimant, Michael Tappin) against Boston Scientific over ex-parte application/endoscopic clips; Optis (claimant, James Whyte, Jennifer Dixon) against Apple (defendant, Charlotte May, Lindsay Lane) over mobile communication technology; CommScope (claimant, James Abrahams) against SOLiD Technologies over distributed antenna systems; Sandoz (joint claimant, Michael Tappin) and Teva against Bristol-Myers Squibb over blood-clot-prevention drug; AMO (defendant, Michael TappinHenry Ward) against Alcon Eye Care over cataract-surgery equipment; Saint-Gobain (claimant, James Abrahams, Michael Conway) against 3M Innovative Properties over industrial sandpaper technology; Noco (defendant, James Abrahams) against Carku over car batteries; Philip Morris (claimant, James Abrahams) against Nicoventures/BAT over heat-not-burn cigarette technology; Advanced Bionics (claimant, Andrew Lykiardopoulos) against Med-El over medical devices; Teva (defendant, Charlotte May, Henry Ward) against Neurim over injunctive relief for insomnia drug; Nokia (claimant, Michael Tappin) against OnePlus/Oppo over mobile communication technology; IP Bridge (claimant, Edmund Eustace) against Huawei (defendant, Henry Ward) over mobile communication technology; Boston Scientific (defendant, Michael Conway) against Cook over endoscopic clips; Sandoz (joint claimant, Andrew Lykiardopoulos) and Teva (joint claimant, Justin Turner) against Bristol-Myers Squibb over blood-clot-prevention drug.

Location

London