Home > People > Barristers > Justin Turner KC

Justin Turner KC

CALL: 1992 | SILK: 2009
Justin Turner KC

Justin Turner’s practice is concerned with all areas of intellectual property and other commercial disputes with a technical character. His technical background (a PhD in immunology) has resulted in a major part of his practice being concerned with biotechnology. He has also presented cases relating to computer software, financial derivatives, electrical engineering, wind turbines, telecoms, industrial process chemistry, ship building and the oil industry. He appears in the UK courts, the European Patent Office and has previously appeared in the Court of Justice of the EU and represents clients in international arbitration. In addition to general IP matters Justin has significant experience of damages inquiries, jurisdictional disputes, injunctions and anti-doping violations.

Justin was voted IP/IT Silk of the Year by Chambers and Partners in 2016. He has been described as “an outstanding advocate and a very clever scientist” with a “fantastic mix of strategic ability and a keen eye for detail” who has also been praised for his ability as a cross examiner (Chambers and Partners).

Justin has represented clients in the leading recent patent cases on insufficiency and plausibility including Regeneron v Kymab [2020] UKSC 22, Fibrogen v Akebia Therapeutics [2021] EWCA 1279, Sandoz v Bristol-Meyers Squibb [2021] EWHC 112, and Neurim v Generics [2022] EWCA 699. He represented Genentech in relation to its patent to IL17 A/F and Gilead Sciences in its litigation with Idenix concerning sofosbuvir (Solvaldi) anti-HCV therapy. He has also represented Warner Lambert before the Court of Appeal in the leading case on the correct construction of second medical use patents. He has been in many of the leading cases concerning interim injunctive relief including Novartis v Hospira and SmithKline Beecham v Apotex.

Justin sits as a chair of the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

Justin formerly sat on GTAC, the gene therapy advisory committee which is responsible for approving gene therapy and stem cell clinical trials in the UK. He was formerly a director of UKAD, the United Kingdom anti-doping agency, which carries out the testing of athletes and brings proceedings relating to WADA anti-doping violations. He currently sits on the governing council of University College London (UCL).

Justin is an editor of the 18th edition of Terrell on the Law of Patents.

  • Experience

    Patents & SPCs

    • Fibrogen v Akebia Therapeutics and Astellas [2021] EWCA 1279  – Representing Astellas in a case concerning HIF-PH inhibitors, a leading case on insufficiency and breadth of claim.
    • Sandoz and Teva v  Bristol-Myers Squibb [2021] EWCA 822 – Representing Teva in a patent case relating to the factor Xa inhibitor, apixaban.
    • Regeneron Pharmaceuticals v Kymab [2020] UKSC 22 – Representing Regeneron in relation to its patents to the reverse chimeric transgenic immunoglobulin loci, both in UK proceedings and before the technical board of appeal of the EPO.
    • Eli Lilly v Genentech [2019] EWHC 387  – Representing Genentech in relation to a patent for IL17A/F.
    • Ablynx v VHSquared [2019] EWHC 792 – Representing Ablynx in relation to a jurisdictional dispute concerning Articles 24 and 31 of Brussels Recast.
    • GSK v Vectura [2018] EWHC 3414 – Representing GSK in relation to an Arrow declaration and invalidity proceedings of patents for inhalation products.
    • L’Oreal v LIQWD [2019] EWCA 1943 – Representing L’Oreal in an action seeking revocation of a patent for the use of maleic acid in hair treatment.
    • Wobben Properties v Siemens [2015] EWCA 2114, [2017] EWCA Civ 5 – Representing Siemens in defending patent infringement proceedings relating to high wind ride through for off-shore wind turbines.
    • Warner Lambert v Actavis [2015] EWCA Civ 556 – Representing Warner Lambert in relation to the enforcement of a second medical use patent for Lyrica – a leading case on the correct approach to construction of second medical use claims.
    • Idenix Pharmaceuticals v Gilead Sciences [2014] EWHC 3916, [2016] EWCA Civ 1089 – Representing Gilead in defending patent infringement proceedings brought in respect of sofosbuvir, a revolutionary antiviral therapy for hepatitis C.
    • Hospira v Kennedy Trust for Rheumatology – Representing the Kennedy Trust in defending patents relating to TNF alpha and methotrexate for RA – the action settled mid-trial. He is currently involved in EPO proceedings relating to the same patents.
    • Novartis v Hospira [2013] EWCA Civ 583 – Representing Novartis in a leading case on the obtaining of a post judgment injunction (relating to Aclasta).
    • Merck Sharp Dome and Bristol Myers v Teva [2013] EWCA 1958 – Representing Merck and Bristol Myers in a leading case on the obtaining of quia timet injunctive relief.
    • Glenmark v Wellcome Foundation and Glaxo [2013] EWHC 148 – Representing Wellcome (GSK) in patent revocation proceedings relating to Malarone.
    • Neurim C130/11 – Obtaining from the CJEU a ruling that, contrary to earlier case law, SPCs were permissible in the field of second medical use.
    • HTC v Apple [2013] EWCA 451 – Representing the Comptroller before the CA concerning the patentability of computer software and opposing Apple’s swipe to unlock and multitouch patents.

    Patent cases pre-2013

    • Convatec and others v Smith & Nephew and others [2011] EWHC 2039 – Representing Smith & Nephew and SFM in the successful defence of a complex misuse of confidential information and patent infringement case in relation to cellulose based wound dressings.
    • Medimmune v Novartis [2011] EWHC 1669 – Representing Novartis in its successful action for revocation of the McCafferty phage display patent.
    • H Lundbeck A/S v Norpharma and others [2011] EWHC 907 – (patent proceedings relating to a process for the synthesis of 5cbx used in the manufacture of escitalopram).
    • Medimmune Limited v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited [2011] EWHC 1669 – (patent proceedings relating to phage display – invalidity of the McCafferty patent).
    • Convatec Limited and others v Smith & Nephew Limited and others [2011] EWHC 2039 – (patent proceedings relating to a cellulose-based wound dressing).
    • Molnlycke Healthcare AB v Brightwake Limited [2011] EWHC 376 – (patent proceedings relating to silicone wound dressings).
    • Apimed Medical Limited v Brightwake Limited [2011] RPC 16 – (patent proceedings relating to honey wound dressings).
    • Generics (UK) Limited and others v H Lundbeck A/S [2009] UKHL 12 -(House of Lords decision concerning the sufficiency and breadth of claim).
    • Novartis and CibaVision v Johnson & Johnson [2009] EWHC 1671 – (patent proceedings relating to extended wear contact lenses).
    • Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences [2008] EWHC 1903 – successfully defending an obviousness attack relating to the novel cytokine BLyS identified by bioinformatics.
    • Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences [2008] EWHC 1903 – (patent proceedings relating to the novel cytokine BLyS identified by bioinformatics).
    • Arrow Generics v Merck [2007] FSR 39 – (jurisdiction of the court to make a declaration in respect of the validity of a patent application).
    • Wobben v Vestas-Celtic [2007] EWHC 2636 – (patent proceedings relating to wind energy systems).
    • Baxter Healthcare v Abbott [2007] EWHC 348  –(patent proceedings concerning the storage of the anaesthetic sevoflurane)
    • Synthon v SmithKline Beecham [2005] UKHL 59 – (House of Lords decision on the correct approach to novelty in the context of a patent to a polymorph).
    • Cambridge Antibody Technology v Abbott [2005] FSR 27 – (licence dispute as to royalty payments to be made pursuant to a joint development collaboration agreement in relation to HUMIRA).
    • Technip France SA’s Patent [2004] RPC 46 – (court of appeal, second action relating to validity of patent for vertical lay system).Glaxo Group Limited’s Patent [2004] RPC 843 – (validity of patent relating to SERETIDE).
    • SmithKline Beecham v Apotex [2004] RPC 27 – (SEROXAT – second patent proceedings in relation to paroxetine hydrochloride anhydrate).
    • SmithKline Beecham’s Patent [2003] RPC 114 – (SEROXAT anticipation under section 2(3) of Patents Act 1977)
    • SmithKline Beecham’s Patent [2003] RPC 855 – (SEROXAT – patent proceedings relating to paroxetine hydrochloride anhydrate).
    • SmithKline Beecham’s Patent [2003] RPC 769 – (SEROXAT – patent proceedings relating to paroxetine hydrochloride anhydrate).
    • SmithKline Beecham v Apotex [2003] FSR 544 – (SEROXAT – interim injunction granted pending trial under patent relating to paroxetine hydrochloride anhydrate).
    • Coflexip v Stolt Offshore [2003] FSR 41 – (court of appeal, principles to be applied on an enquiry as to damages).
    • Monsanto and Pfizer v Merck [2002] RPC 758 – (VIOXX – patent proceedings relating to COX-2 Inhibitors).
    • DSM v Novo [2001] RPC 675 (patent proceedings relating to phytase).
    • Bristol Myers Squibb v Baker Norton and Napro [2001] RPC 1 – (TAXOL – patent proceedings relating to a medical use claim for chemotherapy).
    • Visx v Nidek [1999] FSR 405 – (patent proceedings relating to excimer laser surgery for myopia).
    • Biogen v Medeva [1997] RPC 1 – (House of Lords: patent proceedings relating to recombinant hepatitis vaccine).
    • SmithKline Beecham v Norton & Lek [1997] FSR 81 – (AUGMENTIN – patent proceedings and also a claim for misuse of confidential information in the DNA sequence of a strain of Streptomyces clavuligerus used in the production of potassium clavulanate).
    • Kastner v Rizla [1995] RPC 585 – (a leading patent infringement case in the court of appeal).

    Confidential Information, Trade Marks and other matters

    Justin has a particular interest in misuse of confidential information. In addition to Convatec v Smith & Nephew (referred to above) he represented SmithKline Beecham when it asserted confidential information in the genetic code of a production strain of Streptomyces clavuligerus. He also represented LIFFE, the derivatives exchange, in a claim for misuse of confidential information in a trading system for credit default swaps.

    Justin has conducted a number of mediations on behalf of the design organisation ACID.

    • Dansac v Salts Healthcare [2019] EWHC 104 – a trade mark action concerning parallel importation of medical devices.
    • Lilly and others v 8PM [2009] EWHC 1905 – (damages enquiry following grant of a wrongful injunction).
    • Eli Lilly v 8PM [2008] FSR 11 – (decision of the Court of Appeal concerning whether transiting goods through Europe is trade mark infringement).
    • Cantor Gaming v Game Account Global [2008] FSR 4 – (copyright infringement and breach of contract relating to gaming software)
    • Boehringer v Vetplus [2007] FSR 29 – (whether the principle in Bonnard v Perryman applies to trade mark infringement in a comparative advertising campaign).
    • LIFFE v Pinkava [2006] EWHC 595 – (entitlement proceedings and misuse of confidential information relating to financial derivatives
    • Dyson technology v Strutt [2005] EWHC 2814 – (misuse of confidential information and restrictive covenant relating to vacuum technology).
    • Norozian v Arks [1998] FSR 394 – (film copyright relating to an advert for GUINNESS) Coflexip v Stolt Comex [2001] 182 (patent proceedings relating to a vertical lay system for flexible pipe).

  • Awards
    • Silk of the Year, Chambers & Partners Bar Awards 2016
  • Education & qualifications

    Scientific

    • 1981 – 1986 Studied at the Royal Veterinary College, London University, graduating with a Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine in 1986.
    • 1987 – 1991 Studied at Emmanuel College, Cambridge University, graduating with a PhD in immunology from the department of clinical medicine. His thesis addressed, principally, the role played by interleukins and interferons in the control of immune responses to viral infections.
    • 1990 Consultant scientist at the International Laboratory for Research into Animal Disease, Nairobi. This is an international institute formed for the purpose of developing a vaccine for trypanosomiasis.

    Legal

    • 1990 Studied for a diploma in law at City University. Awarded a Harmsworth Scholarship by Middle Temple.
    • 1991 Attended the Inns of Court School of Law.
    • 1992 Called to the Bar.
  • Interests & pastimes

    Pastimes, before having children, included playing tennis, squash and real tennis (The Queens Club and The Jesters), fly fishing, riding and music. Casual academic interests include evolutionary biology, the history of science and macroeconomics.

Contact Justin Turner KC's clerks

Whilst barristers have a designated practice management team, all the clerks have the capacity and knowledge to assist in cases involving all counsel.

Email the clerks