Strengths: “Brilliant, extremely tenacious and creative lawyer and advocate. A star”, “great advocacy, commands a room with friendly self-confidence. Excellent grasp of all technologies. Making a name for herself in FRAND disputes”. Digital communication, including FRAND.
Clients: InterDigital (claimant) against Lenovo over mobile communication and FRAND; Optis (claimant, High Court) against Apple over mobile communication and FRAND; Optis (respondent, Court of Appeal) against Apple over mobile communication and FRAND.
Strengths: “Hardworking, responsive and client-focused”. Digital communication, life sciences.
Clients: Teva (claimant) against Bayer over drug sorafenib; Lenovo (defendant) against InterDigital over mobile communication technology and FRAND; OnePlus/Oppo (appellant, Court of Appeal) against Nokia over FRAND and jurisdiction.
Strengths: “Excels in pharma but has also won one of the first SEP cases for the patentee”, “generally excellent”. Pharma and biotechnology, digital communication.
Clients: Optis (claimant) against Apple over mobile communication technology; Alcon (claimant) against AMO over cataract surgery technology; NicoVentures/BAT (claimant) against Philip Morris over heat-not-burn cigarettes.
Strengths: “Stand-out star, first-class presentation to court. She is a pleasure to work with”, “practical, responsive, robust and clever”. Pharma and biotechnology, SPC cases, digital communication.
Clients: Apple (defendant) against Optis over mobile communication technology; Alcon (respondent) against Pharmathen and Aspire over glaucoma and ocular hypertension treatment.
Strengths: “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.” Pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, digital communication.
Clients: Sandoz (joint claimant with Teva) against Bristol-Myers Squibb over blood clot prevention drug; Oppo/OnePlus (defendant) against Nokia over mobile communication; Advanced Bionics (claimant) against Med-El over medical devices.
Strengths: “Her expertise in the patents field is at least equalled by her depth of knowledge and experience in trademarks. She is very hands-on, decisive and clear in her advice. Her attention to detail, authoritative”. Pharma and biotechnology.
Clients: Apple (defendant) against Optis over mobile communication technology; Teva (defendant) against Neurim over injunctive relief for insomnia drug.
Strengths: “Excellent KC and lovely to work with. He immediately adds value, he is analytical and works well with the team. Good with clients.” Pharma and biotechnology, digital communication.
Clients: Bayer (claimant) against Teva over drug sorafenib; Glenmark (co-defendant) against Novartis over fingolimod.
Strengths: “Essential to success in FRAND and technical trials”, “simply the best in tech cases”. Digital communication, electronics.
Clients: Apple (appellant, Court of Appeal) against Optis over FRAND and jurisdiction; Manitou (defendant) against JCB over telescopic handlers; OnePlus/Oppo (defendant) against Nokia over digital communication.
Strengths: “Forensic mind and experience”, “great reputation with clients”, “great performer with a calm demeanour, highly rated”. Digital technology, life sciences, emerging technologies.
Clients: Alcon (claimant) against AMO over cataract surgery equipment.
Strengths: “A very level-headed operator; great to have in a really heated dispute”, “a pre-eminent KC across all areas of technology. Incisive and a team-player”. Digital communication, mechanics.
Clients: OnePlus (defendant) against Nokia over mobile communication technology; Cook (claimant) against Boston Scientific over endoscopic clips; Huawei (defendant) against IP Bridge over confidentiality and FRAND licensing.
Strengths: “One of the pre-eminent KCs across all areas of technology with a specialism in FRAND. Forceful and incisive.” Pharma and biotechnology, medical devices, digital communication.
Clients: Interdigital (claimant) against Lenovo over mobile communication technology and FRAND.
The selection of individuals in the above table reflects the research of the editorial staff at JUVE and is based on interviews with clients, lawyers and academics. It remains a subjective view and implies no disparagement of any person not mentioned here but who is nevertheless active in this field. The individuals are listed alphabetically. To find out more about our rankings and research criteria please click here and here.