Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

United Kingdom > London Bar > Intellectual property > Law firm and leading lawyer rankings

Editorial

Other

Index of tables

  1. Intellectual property - Leading sets
  2. Leading Silks
  3. 2018 Silks
  4. 2019 Silks
  5. Leading Juniors

Leading Silks

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4

2018 Silks

  1. 1

2019 Silks

  1. 1

Leading Juniors

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4

11 South Square is 'a top IP set' with capabilities across the full-range of rights. The group has expertise advising on standard essential patents and FRAND litigation, with Brian Nicholson QC instructed in Conversant v Huawei and ZTE, and Mark Vanhegan QC representing Philips in litigation against HTC, Acer, and Asus. In high-profile Supreme Court cases, Benet Brandreth QC represented Cartier International in Supreme Court in litigation against five internet service providers relating to website-blocking injunctions, while Kathryn Pickard was instructed by Mylan and Actavis against Warner Lambert in a leading case for the application of the concepts of sufficiency and infringement to a patent relating to a specified medical use of a known pharmaceutical compound; Michael Silverleaf QC was instructed by the NHS in this case. Also of note, Brian Nicholson QC, who has particular expertise in the technology sector, took silk in 2019.

8 New Square is ‘one of the strongest IP sets in terms of depth of talent’, with barristers that are ‘very strong on all aspects of IP law, from the most junior to QC level’. The set is particularly known for complex patent litigation; Adrian Speck QC and Isabel Jamal are instructed by Unwired Planet while Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC is representing Huawei in high-profile litigation relating to FRAND terms for a global standard essential patent license that is set to be appealed to the Supreme Court next year. In recent Supreme Court cases, Speck QC acted for Actavis, Mylan and Teva, alongside new silk Mark Chacksfield QC in patent litigation against Eli Lilly, while Lindsay Lane QC, who also took silk this year, and Jaani Riordan represented British Telecommunications plc and EE against Cartier International AG in a dispute relating the conditions of an order requiring internet service providers to block or attempt to block access to websites infringing registered trademarks.

Three New Square is a 'pre-eminent IP set' which 'stands out for its service levels' and includes 'go-to barristers for difficult patent cases' across all areas of technology; members are also well versed in trade mark and passing off litigation and copyright and design right matters, particularly in fashion, music, entertainment, and literature. In recent work highlights, Tom Mitcheson QC appeared in the Supreme Court in a high-profile dispute between Warner-Lambert against Actavis relating to Warner-Lambert’s painkiller, Lyrica. Meanwhile, in the Court of Appeal, Joe Delaney successfully represented Regeneron in a patent dispute against Kymab concerning the breeding and use by Kymab of genetically modified mice for the production of human antibodies. In trade mark litigation, Douglas Campbell QC was instructed by Frank Industries in an infringement claim brought against Nike.

With 'superb knowledge of all areas of IP', coupled with 'a considerable strength in depth', Hogarth Chambers is 'a truly specialist set' handling a full range of copyright, trade mark, patent, and design right disputes. The set attracts praise for its 'excellent, commercial and helpful service' that is 'cost effective'. In a recent work highlight, Michael Hicks and Amanda Michaels acted for opposing parties in a dispute between Brewdog plc and the owner of Elvis Presley trade marks relating to the entitlement of the multinational brewery and pub chain to register ELVIS and BREWDOG ELVIS JUICE as a trade mark.

One Essex Court is a 'high-quality, general commercial set with a serious IP specialism', where 'the combination of IP and commercial barristers seems to elevate both'. The set attracts praise for its 'good sector-specific knowledge' and 'strength in depth, with counsel of a range of levels of experience'. It has expertise across a range of soft and hard IP matters, and in a recent highlight Geoffrey Hobbs QC represented Abbvie Biotechnology in the Court of Appeal against Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics in litigation relating to the scope of declaratory relief available to biosimilar manufacturers; Hobbs QC also acted for Sky, alongside Philip Roberts QC, in its trade mark dispute against Skykick, including on the reference to the CJEU.

Blackstone Chambers attracts praise for its 'astounding breadth of expertise', 'strength in depth', and 'modern approach', and is known for its expertise in copyright, trade mark disputes, particularly in the media and entertainment sector. In a recent highlight Ian Mill QC and Tom Cleaver represented The Racing Partnership and others in a copyright and database rights infringement claim against several defendants, including Sports Information Services Limited, by which Michael Bloch QC was instructed. Bloch QC was also instructed by the easyGroup in several brand protection matters.

Interview with...

Law firm partners and practice heads explain how their firms are adapting to clients' changing needs

GC Diversity and Inclusion Report

In partnership with...

International comparative guides

Giving the in-house community greater insight to the law and regulations in different jurisdictions.

Select Practice Area

Press releases

The latest news direct from law firms. If you would like to submit press releases for your firm, send an email request to

Legal Developments in London Bar for Intellectual property

Legal Developments in the UK

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Court of Justice rules on source of income for Derivative Residence applications

    On 2 October 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Bajratari v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Directive 2004/38/EC) Case C-93/18 which concerns Chen applications and the source of funds for self-sufficiency. 
  • End of the ‘centre of life test’ in Surinder Singh cases?

    In the recent case of  ZA (Reg 9. EEA Regs; abuse of rights) Afghanistan   [2019] UKUT 281 (IAC ), the Upper Tribunal found that there is no basis in EU law for the centre of life test, as set out in Regulation 9(3)(a) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (the “Regulations”). It further found that it is not to be applied when Judges assess  Surinder Singh  cases that appear before them.
  • Terms of employment as a sole representative

    In this article we examine the working arrangements of sole representatives, looking at the terms and conditions of employment that the Home Office will expect a sole representative to have in order to qualify as a representative of an overseas business.  
  • Can Sole Representatives Be Shareholders?

    The Immigration Rules require that an applicant for a  sole representative visa  is not “a  majority shareholder in the overseas business”.
  • Immigration Skills Charge - A Guide for Employers

    As a Sponsor, you may be required to pay the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC) each time you sponsor a migrant in the  Tier 2 General  or  Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) Long-term Staff  subcategory.
  • 5 FAQS about paragraph 320(11)

    In applications for entry clearance where the applicant has a negative immigration history in the UK, the application may be refused under the general grounds for refusal, which are found in part 9 of the Immigration Rules. Where an applicant has  ‘previously contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intentions of the Immigration Rules’,  the application could be refused under paragraph 320(11). In this post we look at five frequently asked questions about paragraph 320(11). 
  • Multiple nationality and multiple citizenship (including dual nationality and dual citizenship)

    British nationality law permits multiple nationality and multiple citizenship, including dual nationality and dual citizenship.
  • Applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the Exceptional Talent or Promise Category

    The  Exceptional Talent  and Exceptional Promise categories are for individuals who are recognised leaders or emerging leaders in their field of expertise. There are a number of endorsing bodies for lots of different fields of work, including  artists and musicians ,  architects ,  digital experts ,  scientists  and  academics . While there isn’t an endorsing body for every expert, the growing list means that many individuals could enjoy the flexibility that this category has to offer. 
  • PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS – CIVIL AND CRIMINAL

    Syedur Rahmanconsiders the factors that determine when civil proceedings can go ahead before,or at the same time as, criminal proceedings relating to the same circumstances.
  • Rights of appeal after the Immigration Act 2014

    The Immigration Act 2014 (“the 2014 Act”) reduced the circumstances in which the refusal of an immigration application will give rise to a right of appeal. The  explanatory notes  to the 2014 Act state that the Act was intended to restructure rights of appeal to the Immigration Tribunal. Previously, a right of appeal to the Immigration Tribunal existed against any of the 14 different immigration decisions listed in s.82 of the  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002  (“the 2002 Act”). As explained below, whether or not the refusal of an immigration application currently generates a right of appeal depends on the subject matter of the application rather than its categorisation.

Press Releases in the UK

The latest news direct from law firms. If you would like to submit press releases for your firm, send an email request to