Mr Tom Mitcheson KC KC > Three New Square Intellectual Property > London, England > Barrister Profile
Three New Square Offices
Three New Square
3 NEW SQUARE, LINCOLN'S INN
LONDON
WC2A 3RS
England
- Set Profile
- Go to...
Mr Tom Mitcheson KC KC
Position
Barrister specialising in all types of contentious intellectual property work, including patents, trade marks, copyright, design right, registered designs, passing off and confidential information. Reported cases include: Arsenal v Reed (trade mark, ECJ and CA); Sir Robert McAlpine v Alfred McAlpine (passing off); Pozzoli v BDMO (CA); Lundbeck v Teva (patent sufficiency, HL); L’Oreal v eBay (trade mark); Medeva’s Patent (SPC, CA); Schutz v Werit (SC); Medimmune v Novartis (CA); Lilly v HGS (SC); Cadbury v Nestlé (shape mark, CJEU); Servier v Apotex (SC); Hospira v Genentech (CA); Actavis v Lilly (SC); Warner Lambert v Actavis (SC); Gilead v Teva (SPC, CJEU); Actavis v Icos (SC), Sandoz v Janssen / Searle (SPC, CJEU), Rhodia v Neo (CA), IPCom v Vodafone (CA), Fibrogen v Akebia (CA), GE v Siemens, Pfizer v Moderna, Samsung Bioepis v Janssen.
Career
Called 1996, Inner Temple; QC 2014. Publications: Wang P-C, Vancura A, Mitcheson TGM, and Kuret J (1992), ‘Two genes in Saccaromyces cerevisiae Encode a Membrane-Bound Form of Casein Kinase-1’, Molecular Biology of the Cell 3, 275-286. Terrell on the Law of Patents (20th Edition, 2024). Standing counsel to the comptroller general for patents, designs and trade marks 2009-14. Appointed Person to hear trade mark appeals 2016-. Called to the Irish Bar, 2021 & UPC Representative. Appointed Deputy High Court Judge 2024.
Memberships
Intellectual Property Bar Association; Chancery Bar Association; Bar European Group.
Education
Trinity College, Cambridge (1994 MA First Class Hons Natural Sciences); City University (1994 Diploma in Law CPE – Distinction).
Lawyer Rankings
London Bar > Intellectual property
(Leading Silks)Ranked: Tier 1Tom Mitcheson KC – Three New Square ‘Tom is a go-to barrister on technically difficult life sciences cases. He has a very good background in the life sciences and is able to distil cases into simple concepts easily and speedily, he provides cutting edge advice and his advocacy is smooth like butter, and he is very credible before the bench.’