8 New Square offers unrivalled experience in the conduct of all types of patent litigation in the UK and abroad. We cover all aspects of the law relating to patents and Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs), from Patent Office oppositions and entitlement disputes, to revocation and infringement actions in the Patents Court, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) and all appellate courts, as well as references to the European Court of Justice. We regularly work as part of a team of lawyers from different jurisdictions in the conduct of multi-national patent litigation.
We are able to offer technical and scientific expertise over a wide range of disciplines including cutting edge science and technology. Members of chambers have a vast array of practical experience in advising and conducting patent litigation in many fields, including biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, oil and gas technology, electronics and telecommunications, engineering and consumer products. A team from chambers acted in the first ever biotechnology patent appeal to reach what is now known as the Supreme Court.
For consecutive years, 8 New Square was the only UK set to be awarded a 5* rating in the JUVE Patent Rankings – noting that ‘As always, the majority of the UK’s patent cases feature at least one 8 New Square barrister’.
Members of 8 New Square have appeared in a host of significant patent cases including BioNTech v Curevac (Covid Vaccines); Sandoz v Biogen; Ensygnia v Shell; Sandoz v Bayer; Abott v Dexcom; Teva v Novartis; Pfizer v GSK; Safestand v Weston and Emotional Perception AI v Comptroller-General of Patents – a case which will again see counsel appearing in the Supreme Court during 2025.
Chambers has impressive experience and expertise in disputes concerning SPCs. We acted in Accord Healthcare v Regents of the University of California (an action to revoke a patent and invalidate an SPC concerning prostate cancer treatment); Teva UK v Gilead (a leading SPC case relating to Truvada®); Lilly v Genentech and Master Data Centre v Comptroller General of Patents.