Three New Square Intellectual Property

3newsquare.co.uk

Barrister specialising in all aspects of Intellectual Property law, including patents, SPCs, trade marks, passing off, copyright, designs, confidential information and contractual disputes involving intellectual property or technical subject matter. Recent cases include: Pfizer & BioNTech v Moderna, Pfizer & BioNTech v CureVac (patents, COVID-19, mRNA vaccines); Siemens v GE (patents, wind turbines); Sandoz v BMS (patent/SPC, apixaban); Eli Lilly v Teva (patent, pemetrexed, damages under settlement agreement); Lufthansa v Astronics, Panasonic & Safran (patent, in-seat power sockets, account of profits); Geofabrics v Fiberweb (patent, railway geocomposites, damages inquiry); NHS England, Wales & NI v Warner-Lambert (second medical use patent, pregabalin, damages inquiry, cross-undertakings); Sandoz, Teva & ors v Bayer (patent, rivaroxaban); Illumina v MGI (patents, DNA sequencing); NL Holding v GMA (passing off, copyright infringement, Formula 1, sports personality), Black Sheep v Conilon (trade marks, passing off, beer); Glaxo v Glenmark and Celon (trade marks, 3D shape, inhalers).

Andrew Waugh KC

Leading Counsel specialising in intellectual property law, with particular emphasis on patent litigation, as well as a commercial litigation/arbitration concerning technical matters. A list of more significant UK and EPO cases at www.3newsquare.co.uk.

Charles Brabin

Charles’ practice is in line with Chambers' specialisms; he has been involved in cases spanning a broad range of IP areas, including patents, copyright, trade marks, passing off and registered and unregistered national and Community designs. Charles has been involved in proceedings in IPEC, the High Court and the Court of Appeal and the UKIPO; subject matter has extended to parallel imports, competition law, jurisdiction and remedies, Norwich Pharmacal relief, customs seizures, the concept of ‘image rights’ and sound trade marks. In addition to publicly referenced cases, Charles has worked on numerous matters which have not reached court.

Daniel Selmi

Daniel practises in all areas of intellectual property law and commercial disputes involving the same, including patents, trademarks, passing off, copyright, designs and confidential information. Cases illustrating the breadth of Daniel’s practice include: TQ Delta v Zyxel (patents, ADSL2/2+, VDSL2 technology); Alcon v Aspire (patents, fluprostenol isopropyl ester); Puma v Nike (trade marks, Footware mark); Nokia v Oppo (patent, 4G LTE transmission; Juve Patent “Top 10 patent case of 2022”); Dr Reddy’s and NHS Scotland v Warner-Lambert (patent damages inquiry; selected by The Lawyer as one of the “Top 20 Cases of 2023”); Swatch v Samsung (trade marks, Swiss watch brands; Managing IP “Impact Case of the Year 2024”); Lidl v Tesco (trade marks, passing off and copyright, Tesco’s Clubcard; selected by The Lawyer as one of the “Top 10 Appeals of 2024”); M&S v Aldi (registered designs, “light up gin bottles”); Shorts v Google (trade marks and passing off, YouTube Shorts); and Merck Serono (patents, cladribine for relapse-remitting multiple sclerosis, SPCs). A full CV is available on Daniel’s Chambers’ website, accessible here:

Denise McFarland

Barrister and CEDR-qualified mediator, Joint Head of Chambers at Three New Square IP Chambers specialising in all aspects of intellectual property law, including contentious and non-contentious matters. Cambridge University Supervisor in Intellectual Property Law for Law Tripos ( part time position). Extensive litigation experience in the High Court, Court of Appeal, IPEC, in the General Court in Luxembourg (formerly Court of First Instance and in the period prior to BREXIT ), UK Patent Office, UK IPO, Companies’ Names Tribunal and Copyright Tribunal. Conducts mediations and ADR hearings in all types of commercial and civil disputes, as well as mainstream IPR. Has also sat as a Court-Appointed Examiner appointed to hear US deposition hearings conducted in the UK, especially in US technical patent matters and IPR disputes. Well known in the UK IP field and has built up a longstanding and high reputation and goodwill. Handles all ranges of cases with ease and has a large number of longstanding national and multinational clients who have retained her services over many years. Also has a particularly good rapport and personal touch with some of her artistic individual clients, particularly in the music, media and fashion industry. Denise’s clerks are happy to provide more details and testimonials if required.

Dominic Hughes

Barrister specialising in all aspects of intellectual property. Appointed, following a selection competition, to the Attorney General’s B Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown (2017-2022). Selected cases include: Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v Cadbury UK Ltd with Intervention by The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2022] EWHC 1671 (Ch); DRS Global v Sky (2021); Feria de Zaragoza v Worldwide Business Research (EUIPO Board of Appeal, R77/2020-1); Castelli Trade Mark (O/475/20); Avita Trade Mark (O/208/20); Smoozy Suzy v First Grade (EUIPO Board of Appeal, R1953/2018-5); Don and Low Ltd v Cromar Building Products Ltd (2018); Chemours International Operations Sarl v Arkema France (2017); Epshtein v Comptroller General [2017] RPC 11; VPG v Air-Weigh [2016] FSR 4; Blephacare Trade Mark (0/310/15 & 0/313/15); William Mark & Wow! Stuff v Gift House [2015] EWCA Civ 521 & [2014] EWHC 2845 (IPEC); Vertical v Poleplus [2015] EWHC 841 (IPEC); Lilley v Euromoney [2014] EWHC 2364 (Ch); Wallenius v Brightwater [2012] EWHC 3810 (Pat); Eli Lilly v Gurnos [2012] EWHC 3661 (Ch) & [2012] EWHC 2297 (Ch); H. Lundbeck v Infosint [2011] RPC 23; Powawalker Trade Mark (0/411/10); Roja Dove Trade Mark (0/016/10) ; Handi-Craft v B Free World [2008] EWCA Civ 868 & [2008] EWCA Civ 1008 & [2007] EWHC B10; Care Monitoring 2000 v Burall [2008] EWPCC 28; Eli Lilly v Neopharma & Neolab [2008] FSR 25; Procter & Gamble v Reckitt Benckiser [2008] FSR 8 and The Times (17th October 2007); Markem Corporation v Zipher Ltd [2005] RPC 31 & [2005] RPC 3 & [2004] RPC 11 & [2004] RPC 10; Liaoning Light v Yu (0/071/04); Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Baker Hughes Inc. [2002] EWHC 2524.

Douglas Campbell KC

Barrister specialising in all aspects of intellectual property and information technology law. Silk 2016, Appointed Recorder in 2010, Deputy High Court Judge in 2015. Former member of Attorney-General's Panel of Junior Counsel, 2010-2015. Called to Bar of Ireland in 2021, Unified Patent Court (UPC) legal representative as of May 2024..Registered as a legal practitioner in the Dubai International Financial Centre in May 2024, and appeared as leading counsel in the first intellectual property case heard there under the DIFC IP Law. Editor of Terrell on the Law of Patents, published in its 20th edition as the leading practitioner text on UK patent law. Has acted for many leading companies in the electronics, telecommunications, chemical, pharmaceutical, technology, consumer products and other industries. Recent UK cases include Marks & Spencer v Aldi [2024] EWCA Civ 178 (registered design), Industrial Cleaning Equipment (Southampton) Ltd v Intelligent Cleaning Equipment Holdings, [2023] EWCA Civ 1451 (trade mark, acquiescence, departure from retained EU law), Interdigital v Lenovo [2023] EWCA Civ 34, [2023] EWHC 1577 (Pat), [2023] EWHC 172 (Pat) (patent for 4G/LTE mobile telecommunications); Dr Reddy’s v Warner-Lambert [2023] EWCA Civ 73, [2022] EWHC 189 (Pat), (damages enquiry on cross-undertaking, abuse of process); Neurim v Teva [2022] EWHC 1641 (Pat) (interim injunction, pharmaceutical patent); Fit Kitchen v Scratch Meals [2022] WLUK 350 (trade mark, equitable defences); Salt Ship v Prysmian [2021] EWHC 3583 (Comm) (designs, trade secrets, and publicity order); Planet Art LLc v Photobox [2020] ETMR 35 (trade mark, passing off, whether mark descriptive) Freshasia Foods v Lu [2019] EWHC 638 (Ch) (confidential information, restrictive covenants) Frank v Nike [2018] EWHC 1893 (Ch), [2018] EWCA Civ 497 (trade mark, interim injunction, social media); AP Racing v Alcon Components [2018] EWCA Civ 1420 (patent); Cantel Medical v Arc [2018] EWHC 345 (Pat) (patent, medical devices, designs); London Taxi v Frazer Nash [2018] FSR 7, CA (shape trade mark); Icescape v Ice World [2019] FSR 5, CA (leading CA case on patent infringement; entitlement to priority); Comic v Fox [2016] FSR 31, CA (validity of a series of trade marks); [2016] FSR 30, CA (leading UK case on trade mark infringement; “Glee” TV programme); Teva v Boehringer Ingelheim [2015] EWHC 2963 (patent, pharmaceuticals); Phil & Ted’s Most Excellent Buggy Co v TFK Trends for Kids [2014] EWCA Civ 469, [2013] EWPCC 21 (patent); Vector v Glatt [2007] EWCA Civ 805, CA (added matter, patent); Coflexip v Stena Offshore [2004] FSR 34, CA (estoppel, damages); Stena v Irish Ferries [2003] RPC 668, CA (special defences to patent infringement); Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd v Tunnard [2007] FSR 34 16, CA (employee’s duties); Dyson v Qualtex [2006] RPC 31, CA (design right); Thermos v Aladdin [2002] FSR 11 (CA) (registered design).

Geoffrey Pritchard

Geoffrey is a highly regarded senior junior with a practice covering all aspects of intellectual property and information technology. His practice is split 50:50 between high-tech cases (e.g. patents, confidential information and technically related contracts) and "soft" IP cases (e.g. trade marks, passing-off, copyright and designs). Geoffrey appears in the Court of Appeal, High Court/Patents Court, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, the General Court, the patent offices, arbitrations and mediations. In recent years he has often appeared without a leader and has extensive experience of conducting trials, cross-examination (particularly of expert witnesses) and applications for urgent interim relief.

Georgina Messenger

Barrister specialising in all aspects of Intellectual Property law including patents, trade marks, passing off, copyright, designs, confidential information and contractual disputes involving intellectual property or technical subject matter. Advice, drafting and advocacy covering all these areas both in the UK Courts and UKIPO, the EUIPO and the General Court. Recent cases include: Patents: Trailerlogic LLC v Roftek Ltd (IPEC): mechanical patent, infringement, validity –sole counsel for the Defendants. Astrazeneca v Tesaro [2023] EWHC 803 (Ch): royalty provisions, second medical use patents. Takeda UK Limited v F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG [2019] EWHC 1911 (Pat): Antibodies, infringement, validity. Eli Lilly v Genentech [2019] EWHC 3260 (Pat): SPC’s, post reference hearings, patents. Illumina Inc v Premaitha Health Plc [2017] EWHC 2930 (Pat): Biotech patents, infringement, validity. Trade Marks, Copyright, Design Rights: Gibraltar (UK) Limited v Viovet Limited [2024] EWHC 777 (Ch): comparative advertising, preliminary issue – sole counsel for the Claimants. Enreach UK Limited v Inreach Group Limited [2022] EWHC 2867 (Ch): sole counsel for the Defendant, successful strike out application. Industrial Cleaning Equipment (Southampton) Limited v Intelligent Cleaning Equipment Holdings Co., Ltd [2023] EWHC 411 (IPEC): Infringement, validity, acquiescence, honest concurrent use – sole counsel for the Claimant at first instance. Appeal on acquiescence [2023] EWCA Civ 1451. Hayman-Joyce Property Ltd v Hayman-Joyce Broadway LLP [2023] EWHC 1028 (IPEC): passing off, trade marks; validity, implied licences – sole counsel for the Defendants. Claridge’s Hotel Limited v Claridge Candles Limited [2019] EWHC 2003 (IPEC): Trade marks, passing off, revocation – sole counsel for the Claimant. International Pipeline Products v IKUK: Patents, conspiracy, trade marks, copyright, design rights, limitation, security for costs, preliminary issues. Greencastle v Payne & Others: Passing off. Sky Limited v Sky Insurance Services Group Limited: Trade marks, infringement, revocation, bad faith. Frank Industries Pty Ltd v Nike Retail BV [2018] EWHC 1893 (Ch), [2018] EWCA Civ 497: Infringement, invalidity, abbreviations, advertising, interim injunctions. Azumi Ltd v Zuma’s Choice Pet Products Ltd [2017] EWHC 609 (IPEC), [2017] EWCA Civ 2133: Infringement, own name defence, unjustified threats, recusal. Cisco v Gen-X: High Court – Parallel imports, counterfeit products, joint tortfeasance. T-421/18 Bauer Radio Ltd v EUIPO, sole counsel for the Applicant in an appeal to the General Court. T-312/19 Wilhelm Sihn v EUIPO (and Golden Frog GMBH), sole counsel for the Intervener in an appeal to the General Court. Kason Kek-Gardner Ltd v Process Components Ltd [2016] EWHC 2198 (Ch), [2017] EWCA Civ 2132: Contractual construction, estoppel, repudiation, rectification, design right/copyright/trade mark infringement. Signature Realty Limited v Fortis Developments [2016] EWHC 3583 (Ch). Regular appearances before the UKIPO and Appointed Person in a variety of cancellation, opposition and registration proceedings.

Guy Burkill KC

Specialises in all intellectual property; particularly active in technology-oriented patent cases. Has acted for many leading multinational companies in the telecoms, computer, electronics, chemical, pharmaceutical, aviation and other fields. Notable cases include Salbutamol, Cimetidine and Fenbufen patents (licences of right); Hoechst v British Petroleum (chemical manufacture, account of profits); Step v Emson (claim construction); Hallen v Brabantia (technical obviousness); Dyson v Hoover (post-expiry injunction); Philips v Princo (CD recording; directors’ liability); Sweeney v MacMillan (James Joyce’s ‘Ulysses’, copyright and passing off); EMGS v Schlumberger (attributes of ‘skilled person’); Flynn Pharma v DrugsRUs (trade marks: parallel importation from outside EU); Qualcomm v Nokia, HTC v Apple, Nokia v HTC, Samsung v Apple, Optis v Apple, Nokia v Oppo (various aspects of mobile phone technology).

Jeremy Heald

Intellectual property barrister specialising in patents, trade marks and passing off. Regularly appears in the High Court, Court of Appeal, UK Trade Marks Registry and EPO. Recent cases include Nestlé v Mondelez (acquired distinctive character), Sky v SkyKick (trade mark infringement), Dyson v Euro-pro (comparative advertising), Philips v Asus & HTC (telecoms patents), InterDigital v Lenovo (telecoms patents), Teva v Janssen (supplementary protection certificates).

Joe Delaney

Barrister specialising in patent and SPC litigation across various technical fields (in particular, biotech, pharma and telcoms/FRAND). Recent notable cases include: Akebia v FibroGen; InterDigital v Lenovo; Apple v Optis; Nokia v OPPO; Regeneron v Kymab; Philips v HTC; Teva v Gilead; Takeda v Roche; Illumina v Ariosa; TQ Delta v ZyXEL;

Katherine Moggridge

Barrister specialising in all aspects of intellectual property law: patents, SPCs, trade marks, passing off, copyright, designs and confidential information. Recent cases include: Modernatx v Pfizer & BioNTech (COVID-19 vaccine patents); Phillips v OPPO (telecoms patents; Pfizer v GSK (vaccine patents); AstraZeneca v Tesaro (patent licensing dispute); Teva v Novartis (Arrow declaratory relief); Sandoz & Teva v BMS (pharmaceutical patents); Teva v Novartis (pharmaceutical patent, expedited trial); Neurim & Flynn v Mylan (divisional patent, preliminary issues); Optis v Apple (telecoms patent); MSD v Wyeth (vaccine patent); Neurim & Flynn v Mylan (pharmaceutical patent, interim relief, exclusive licensee, costs); Liqwd v L’Oréal (haircare patent, damages inquiry); Accord/Aspire v Allergan (pharmaceutical patent); Emson v Hozelock (mechanical patents); Actavis v ICOS Corp (pharmaceutical patent; Supreme Court); Juul v Quick Juul (trade marks, passing off, ex parte interim relief including interim injunctions and doorstep search orders; summary judgment); Manchester United v SEGA (trade marks, passing off); Juul v JCR Biotech (trade marks, registered designs, passing off; default judgment); Generics v Yeda (pharmaceutical patent); Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics v AbbVie Biotechnology (pharmaceutical patents and applications, entitlement to priority, Arrow declaratory relief). Katherine has also recently appeared in a LCIA pharmaceutical arbitration. Publications Katherine is also a contributing editor of Terrell on the law of Patents (18th, 19th and 20th Editions).

Miles Copeland

Intellectual Property, Information Technology and related commercial disputes including arbitrations; patents, trademarks, passing off, copyright, designs, confidential information, malicious falsehood. Advice, drafting and advocacy both in the UK and the EPO. Cases include: Lufthansa v Astronics [2022-2024] (account of profits); Bayer v Sandoz [2024] (interim injunctions & inquiry on cross-undertaking); Remfry v GKN [2024] (striking out of patent infringement claim); Alcatel Lucent v Amazon [2024] (RAND licensing); R2 v Intel [2023] (voltage regulators); IPBridge v Huawei [2023] (mobiles); Rhodia v Neo [2018-2023] (ceric oxides, also damages enquiry); AutoStore v Ocado [2022-2023] (robots); Illumina v Latvia [2020-2021] (nucleic acid sequencing); Conversant v Huawei [2018-2020] (mobiles); Actavis v Warner-Lambert [2015-2018] (Supreme Court, pregabalin for pain, second medical use patents); Edwards v Boston [2017] (heart valves); GSK v Wyeth [2017] (damages enquiry); Chromatography column [2015] (EPO opposition); HTC v Gemalto [2013] (computer software, mobiles); Nokia v HTC [2013] (mobiles); Resolution v Lundbeck [2013] (estoppel, privity); Fabio Perini v PCMC [2009-2012] (mechanical patent, also damages inquiry). Contributing author of “Terrell on the Law of Patents”.

Richard Miller KC

Barrister specialising in patents, trade marks, passing off, copyright, design rights, breach of confidence, restrictive covenants and all other aspects of intellectual property law, including EU law relating to intellectual property.

Stuart Baran

Stuart is currently Standing Counsel to the Comptroller-General, and was the Legal 500 IP, IT and Media Junior of the Year for 2018. He is in high demand to advise on disputes of all sizes and across the full range of IP rights. With a strong scientific research background, including a doctorate in physical chemistry, Stuart is a natural choice for patents disputes; his trade marks practice is also at the highest level. Stuart represents clients from all sectors in all courts and in proceedings at the UKIPO and EPO. He represented Eli Lilly successfully in the UK Supreme Court pemetrexed litigation, and has recently appeared in the UKSC in Sky v. SkyKick (trade marks) and unled in Thaler v. Comptroller (patents, inventorship, AI). Other cases include Resolution v. Lundbeck (citalopram), Comic v. Fox (GLEE), FH Brundle v. Perry (threats), Cadbury v. Nestle (colour marks), Biocompatibles v. Biosphere (EPO), Coca-Cola “MASTER” (GCEU), Merck v. ONO (biotech), Teva v. BI (patents, SPCs), “TEAM GB” trade mark(UKIPO), ldenix v. Gilead (antivirals), Timesource v. Ultimate (passing off, account of profits). Glaxo v. Wyeth (vaccines), Coloplast v. Macgregor (medical devices- trial conducted unled). Hospira v. Cubist (antibiotics), Merck v Shionogi (HIV), Accord v RCT (lacosamide), Sandoz v Searle (darunavir, SPCs), Sky v Skykick (trade marks), Lilly v. Genentech (patents, SPCs, issue estoppel – UK and EPO), Glaxo v. Sandoz (passing off), IPCom v. Vodafone (telecoms), Teva & Sandoz v. BMS (patents, pharmaceuticals), Teva v. Bayer (sorafenib), Teva v. Grünenthal (testosterone formulation), Siemens v. GE (patents, wind turbines, territoriality).

Thomas Hinchliffe KC

All aspects of contentious intellectual property, with a particular emphasis on patent litigation in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and mobile telephony ﬁelds. Recent notable cases include: Advanced cell Diagnostics v Molecular Instruments [2024] (DNA and RNA detection techniques), Bayer IP v Aspire & Others [2024] (interim injunctions, launch of generic pharmaceutical products); Nokia v Oppo (2022) (LTE RACH preamble sequences); Optis v Apple [2022] (LTE PUCCH multiplexing); Alcon v AMO [2021] (laser cataract surgery); Teva v Janssen [2021] (SPC, prodrugs); InterDigital v Lenovo [2021] (4G – two trials); Illumina v MGI [2020] (DNA sequencing, fluorescence); IPCom v HTC [2020] (patent damages); Merck Sharp & Dohme v Wyeth [2020] (pneumococcal vaccines); Conversant v Huawei & ZTE (3G/4G mobile phones; FRAND inquiries); Aspire/Accord v Allergan [2019] (glaucoma, penetration enhancers); Emson v Hozelock [2020] & [2019] (expandable hosepipes); Philips v Asus [2019] & [2018] (mobile phones, UMTS, HSDPA, power control); Merck v The Comptroller C-567/16 [2017] (CJEU, SPC; marketing authorisations); Illumina v Premaitha [2017] (patents, ante-natal testing); Merck v Teva [2017] (SPC, HIV drugs), Novartis v Actavis [2016] (Alzheimer’s drugs); Lilly v Actavis [2016] (male erectile dysfunction); Hospira v Cubist [2016] & [2017] (antibiotics); Unwired Planet v Samsung [2016] (UMTS mobile telephone); Merck v Ono [2015] (anti-cancer antibiotics); Merck v Sigma C-539/13; [2013] (CJEU, parallel imports, Specific Mechanism); Philips v Nintendo [2014] (Nintendo Wii, motion controllers); AGA v Occlutech [2014] (medical devices, atrial septal occluders);; Mylan v Yeda [2014] (multiple sclerosis); Perini v PCMC [2012] damages inquiry).

Thomas Lunt

Thomas is a barrister specialising in intellectual property law. His practice encompasses all areas in intellectual property including patents and SPCs, trade marks, passing off, copyright, and confidential information. Thomas is described by clients as a “truly excellent junior” who is “extremely hardworking and intellectually bright” and “provides great client service”. His recent patent cases include Akebia v Fibrogen (a leading case on the approach to sufficiency of functional claims) and Sandoz, Teva v BMS (the first appellate decision on plausibility following G2/21). He acted in the Dr Reddy’s, NHS England & ors v Warner-Lambert damages inquiry concerning pregabalin (which was described by The Lawyer as one of the “Top 20 Cases of 2023”) and is presently instructed in ongoing FRAND proceedings. He is a contributing author to Terrell on the Law of Patents, editing the chapters on construction and plausibility. Thomas maintains an active trade marks practice and has worked on cases across diverse sectors including beverages, luxury personal goods, and medical devices. In addition to his experience before the High Court, he represents clients unled before the UK IPO.

Tim Austen

Tim practises in all aspects of intellectual property law, with a particular focus on patents, trade marks and confidential information. He is a graduate in biochemistry and has broad experience in patents disputes, in particular those in the life sciences sector. He has appeared in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court. Tim has also appeared in opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office, in trade mark proceedings before the General Court, and in patent and trade mark proceedings before the UK Intellectual Property Office. Selected recent cases: Patents Abbott Laboratories x Dexcom (on-body glucose monitoring devices) Warner-Lambert v Actavis (second medical use patent, trial, appeals to the Supreme Court, and subsequent damages inquiry) JCB v Manitou (control systems for telehandlers, appeal pending) Coloplast v Salts Healthcare (ostomy pouches) Moderna v Pfizer & BioNTech (covid vaccines) Coloplast v MacGregor Healthcare (catheters) Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (heart valves) Trade marks Match Group v Muzmatch (online dating services, High Court trial and Court of Appeal) Fidelity Investments v Fidelis Insurance (trade marks, passing off) The Military Mutual v Police Mutual (extended passing off) Victoria’s Secret v The Beauty Traders (trade marks, parallel imports) Other rights AlfaSharp v ADG Capital Management (database right, copyright, breach of contract) Salt Ship Design v Prysmian Powerlink (confidential information, cable laying ship design) Coward v Phaestos (confidential information, copyright, business software) TF3 & Conair (patents, unregistered designs, haircare devices, and EPO proceedings) The Racing Partnership v SIS (database right, copyright, confidential information) Sandoz v Reckitt Benckiser (damages enquiry following breach of competition law) Tim appears led and unled, and has represented parties unled in IPEC trials and in appeals, and in substantial applications in the High Court, including for amendment of pleadings (Salt Ship Design v Prysmian Powerlink), summary judgment (Price v Flitcraft), disclosure and collateral use of disclosed documents (JCB v Manitou), contempt of court and committal (Price v Flitcraft).

Tom Mitcheson KC

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.

Legal 500

Our Team

FAQs

Marketing Resources

Newsletters

Contact us