The Legal 500

HANOVER HOUSE, 14 HANOVER SQUARE, LONDON, W1S 1HP, ENGLAND
Tel:
Work 020 7667 5000
Fax:
Fax 020 7667 5100
DX:
44617 MAYFAIR
Web:
www.harbottle.com
Email:

Adam Mitton

Tel:
Work +44 20 7667 5000
Email:
Harbottle & Lewis LLP

Work Department

IP and technology.

Position

Partner in intellectual property and technology groups specialising in technology, digital media, internet and e-commerce, data protection (also including regulation of premium rate services). Principally non-contentious commercial contracts and advisory work. Recent clients include Phorm, Omnifone, a number of Virgin Group companies and 08000MumDad.

Career

Trained at Norton Rose, 2001-03; qualified 2003; assistant solicitor, TMT, Norton Rose, 2003-05; Harbottle & Lewis, assistant IP and technology (2005-08), senior associate (2008-10), partner 2010.

Education

Ermysted’s Grammar School, Skipton; Robinson College, Cambridge University (BA Law (2:1)); Law School (BPP, LPC).

Leisure

Football, cycling, watching all sports, travel, theatre.

Practice Areas

Electronic commerce; Information technology; Intellectual property

Back to index

Legal Developments by:
Harbottle & Lewis LLP

  • Account of profits v damages: when and why does it matter?

    Since 2007, Experience Hendrix LLC(Hendrix) and Times Newspapers Ltd (Times) have been litigating over the intellectual property rights (IPR) in a recording of a Jimi Hendrix concert that took place at the Royal Albert Hall in February 1969. In September 2006 Times distributed a free CD, or covermount, with each edition of The Sunday Times . A claim was issued against Times in March 2007 for infringement of copyright and performers’ rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. In March 2008 the High Court held that Times had infringed the IPR in the recording and Hendrix elected to have an inquiry as to damages in respect of that infringement. The case has given rise to some complex issues as to the basis for the quantification of damages, and the inquiry is due to be heard next year, but the case is also a reminder of more general considerations in relation to remedies in IPR cases, and why the basis for quantification of those remedies can have far reaching consequences for a successful claimant.

    - Harbottle & Lewis LLP

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to