Home

News

5* JUVE Patent Ranking17 January 2024In the recently published JUVE Patent Rankings, 8 New Square was the only UK set to be given a 5* rating.  It received commendation for its telecommunications and FRAND work, its visibility across the field of IP and its commitment to equality and diversity among current and prospective tenants.  
Safestand v Weston Homes [2023] EWHC 3250 (Pat)19 December 2023Andrew Lykiardopoulos KC and Henry Edwards represented the Claimant (“Safestand”) in proceedings brought against the Defendants (“Weston”) for infringement of three of Safestand’s patents, and three of its registered designs (“RRDs”). Weston counterclaimed for invalidity of (i) two of the patents (“EP 738” and “UK 822”), for obviousness; and (ii) all three RRDs, based on […]
Tyburn Film Productions v Broughton & Ors [2023] EWHC 3247 (Ch)8 December 2023Tom Moody-Stuart KC and Joshua Marshall appeared for the Claimant (“Tyburn”) and Jonathan Hill appeared for the Fourth and Fifth Defendants (together, “the Defendants”), in the Defendants’ application to strike out and/or obtain summary judgment on Tyburn’s unjust enrichment claim against them. The application, and Tyburn’s claims against other defendants in the proceedings, relate to […]
Industrial Cleaning Equipment v Intelligent Cleaning Equipment [2023] EWCA Civ 14516 December 2023James St.Ville KC appeared for the appellant in this trade mark appeal, persuading the Court of Appeal for the first time after Brexit to depart from the case law of the European Court of Justice under section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.  It is now the leading UK case on the requirement […]
Emotional Perception AI v Comptroller-General of Patents [2023] EWHC 2948 (Ch)21 November 2023Mark Chacksfield KC and Henry Edwards appeared, instructed by Bruce Dearling of Hepworth Browne, for the successful appellant in this potentially important decision on appeal from the UKIPO.  The core issue was one that has not previously come before the Court: namely the correct application of the exclusion under the Patents Act 1977 for ‘programs […]
Saint-Gobain Adfors SAS v 3M Innovative Properties Co [2023] EWHC 2769 (Pat)8 November 2023James Abrahams KC and Michael Conway appeared for the claimant (“SG”) and Henry Edwards appeared for the defendant (“3M”), in cross-applications before Michael Tappin KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge). SG and 3M each sought an order, under CPR 31.22(1)(a) and 31.22(2), respectively, relating to the confidentiality of files (the “CT Scan Files”) […]
Malaysian launch of Russell-Clarke and Howe on Industrial Designs3 November 2023Martin Howe KC spoke in Kuala Lumpur at the launch of the 10th Edition of Russell-Clarke and Howe on Industrial Designs, which contains a new section on the law of Malaysia contributed by Hemalatha Parasa Ramulu, a partner in Skrine, the leading Kuala Lumpur firm of Advocates and Solicitors who have strong intellectual property expertise. […]
EasyGroup v Nuclei [2023] EWCA Civ 124727 October 2023Jaani Riordan appeared for the successful Respondents (“Nuclei”) in an appeal brought by easyGroup Ltd (“easyGroup”) against a decision of Bacon J dismissing its claims for infringement of four trade marks for “easyOffice” and related devices (“the Marks”) and revoking all four Marks for non-use. easyGroup alleged infringement under ss 10(1) and 10(2) of the […]
Philip Morris v Nicoventures [2023] EWHC 2616 (Pat)25 October 2023Andrew Lykiardopoulos KC appeared for the successful claimants (together “PMI”) in a patent validity action brought against the defendants (together “BAT”). PMI sought to revoke BAT’s patent (“the Patent”) on grounds of: (i) anticipation; (ii) obviousness; (iii) added matter (in light of BAT’s conditional amendments), and sought an Arrow declaration. BAT counterclaimed for infringement. The […]
EnOcean v Far Eastern & TLC [2023] EWHC 2615 (IPEC)24 October 2023Michael Conway appeared for the Claimant and Jonathan Hill appeared for the Defendants in a patent infringement and validity action. Only validity was in issue, as the Defendants accepted that their product, the Quinetic Wireless Switch, fell within two claims of the Claimant’s patent (“the Patent”). The Defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the Patent on […]