Home

News

Technomed v Bluecrest Health Screening [2017] EWHC 2142 (Ch)24 August 2017Jonathan Hill successfully represented the claimants (“Technomed”) in this claim for infringement of sui generis database right and various copyrights by the defendants (“Bluecrest” and “Express”). Bluecrest had entered a contract with Technomed for the provision of heart screening services, using Technomed’s Electrocardiogram (ECG) analysis and reporting system (known as the ECG Cloud). This was […]
Technomed Ltd v Bluecrest Health Screening Ltd24 August 2017Jonathan Hill successfully represented the claimants (“Technomed”) in this claim for infringement of sui generis database right and various copyrights by the defendants (“Bluecrest” and “Express”). Bluecrest had entered a contract with Technomed for the provision of heart screening services, using Technomed’s Electrocardiogram (ECG) analysis and reporting system (known as the ECG Cloud). This was […]
Premier League Commission8 August 2017A number of members of chambers regularly sit as arbitrators. Decisions of arbitral panels are rarely made public but an exception was the recent decision of a Commission, established pursuant to the rules of the Premier League, which has attracted interest among football clubs and fans concerning the rules requiring clubs to offer concessionary prices […]
Premier League Commission8 August 2017A number of members of chambers regularly sit as arbitrators. Decisions of arbitral panels are rarely made public but an exception was the recent decision of a Commission, established pursuant to the rules of the Premier League, which has attracted interest among football clubs and fans concerning the rules requiring clubs to offer concessionary prices […]
The London Taxi Corporation Ltd (t/a The London Taxi Company) v Fraser-Nash Research Ltd (2) Ecotive Ltd20 July 2017Mark Platts-Mills QC and Maxwell Keay appeared for the Respondents, Frazer-Nash Research Limited and Ecotive Limited, in this appeal by the Appellant, the London Taxi Corporation, against the Judgment of Arnold J, [2016] EWHC 52 (Ch). This case concerned the Appellant’s trade marks for the shape of London taxis. The Appellant alleged that the Respondents’ […]
Actavis -and- Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 4812 July 2017Daniel Alexander QC, Richard Meade QC and Isabel Jamal appeared for the Claimant/Respondent, Actavis, in this landmark case in which the Supreme Court changed the way in which UK courts consider patent infringement by ‘equivalents’. The Supreme Court, allowing the appeal and finding that Actavis’s product both directly and indirectly infringed, substantially re-cast the English […]
Actavis -v- Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 4812 July 2017Daniel Alexander QC, Richard Meade QC and Isabel Jamal appeared for the Claimant/Respondent, Actavis, in this landmark case in which the Supreme Court changed the way in which UK courts consider patent infringement by ‘equivalents’. The Supreme Court, allowing the appeal and finding that Actavis’s product both directly and indirectly infringed, substantially re-cast the English […]
Michael Conway accepts offer of Tenancy28 June 2017Michael holds a DPhil from Wolfson College, Oxford  and a First Class degree in Biochemistry from Trinity College, Oxford. During pupillage Michael has been involved in several major patent actions as well as trade mark, design and copyright cases. Michael’s pupil supervisors have been James St. Ville, Mark Chacksfield and James Whyte.
Michael Conway accepts tenancy at 8 New Square27 June 2017Chambers is delighted to announce that Michael Conway has accepted an offer of tenancy which he will take up on the completion of pupillage at the end of September. Michael holds a DPhil from Wolfson College, Oxford and a First Class degree in Biochemistry from Trinity College, Oxford. During pupillage Michael has been involved in […]
Astex Therapeutics Ltd -v- Astrazeneca Ab [2017] EWHC 1442 (Ch)21 June 2017James Mellor QC and James Whyte appeared for the Defendant, AstraZeneca, in a case concerning payments under a collaboration agreement between AstraZeneca and the Claimant, Astex. The terms of the agreement provided that Astex were entitled to milestone payments in certain circumstances, and to royalties from sales of any products containing a “collaboration compound”. Astex […]