The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

Elkington + Fife LLP

Work 020 7936 8800
Fax 020 7353 4329
London, Sevenoaks

London: TMT (technology, media and telecoms)

PATMA: Patent attorneys
PATMA: Patent attorneys - ranked: tier 2

Elkington + Fife LLP

Elkington + Fife LLP is among the most renowned oppositions and appeals practices in the market, including extensive experience in petitions for review, with a strong electronics department and a powerful team specialising in the prosecution of chemical and pharmaceutical patents, most notably acting for major generics players. The practice's strength in the prosecution of patents for software and computer-implemented inventions is another clear asset. London's Richard Gillard directs the chemical and life sciences group while Sevenoaks-based Nick Ertl heads the electrical and mechanical group.

Practice head(s):Richard Gillard; Nick Ertl

Other key lawyers:James Anderson; Richard Cooke; Oliver Kingsbury; Rob O'Callaghan; Daniell Portch; Erik Scheuermann; Glyn Truscott

Key Clients

Corning Incorporated

Dow Corning

Fujifilm Speciality Ink Systems Limited





Procter & Gamble


University of Kent

Work highlights

  • Represented Mylan in EPO opposition proceedings against Novartis regarding a patent covering the commercially important osteoporosis and cancer drug zoledronic acid, ultimately securing revocation of the Novartis patent before the Board of Appeal, a decision later confirmed in petition for review proceedings.
  • Represented Procter & Gamble in EPO opposition proceedings and successfully defended a patent covering a new use of two decongestant drugs targeting cold and flu viruses.
  • Represented Atreca, Inc, a Stanford University spin-off, at the EPO, ultimately succeeding in obtaining the grant of a complex immunology patent after closely liaising with the client's US and in-house counsel, a key patent for the development of the client's patent portfolio.
  • Assisted Graphene Composites Ltd with the development of the patent portfolio protecting its core products, a range of new composite materials for armour and aerospace applications, filing several patent applications and advising the client on its IP strategy.
  • Assisting IBM with the drafting and prosecution of patents aimed at covering software-related and computer-implemented inventions.

[back to top]

PATMA: Trade mark attorneys
PATMA: Trade mark attorneys - ranked: tier 2

Elkington + Fife LLP

Elkington + Fife LLP's trade mark practice continues to grow, attesting to the firm's success in carving out its space in the market since practice head Chris McLeod joined in 2015. Strategic trade mark advice and the drafting and filing of applications are as much a part of the team's portfolio of expertise as the representation of clients in opposition and appeal proceedings in which the group often prevails over opponents with significantly deeper trade mark attorney benches. The group succeeds in attracting a varied range of clients, acting for major international corporations, but maintaining a steady caseload for smaller domestic clients.

Practice head(s):Chris McLeod

Key Clients

Acer Incorporated


Blank Rome LLP

Corning Incorporated

Decon Laboratories Limited

Evonik Industries AG

Formula One Management Limited

Koninklijke Philips N.V.

Malvern Panalytical B.V.

Old St. Andrews Limited

Work highlights

  • Assisted Haart & Lieu Limited with strategic advice in relation to its global trade mark filing exercise and prepared and filed trade mark applications in the UK, the EU and other territories.
  • Represented Acer Incorporated in Nominet domain name dispute resolution service (DRS) procedures against third-party domain name registrations containing the ACER trade mark.
  • Represented Independent Vetcare Limited in relation to a growing portfolio of trade mark applications and registrations, including strategic advice and resolution of third-party disputes.
  • Represented a subsidiary of Vohkus Limited in the defence of a UK trade mark application for the mark CXO2 against an opposition by the telecoms company O2, involving an appeal to the Appointed Person.
  • Represented Toys R Us and successors in title in relation to multiple oppositions and other third-party disputes in the UK and EU, primarily in relation to trade marks containing the element “R US”.

[back to top]

Further information on Elkington + Fife LLP

Please choose from this list to view details of what we say about Elkington + Fife LLP in other jurisdictions.


Offices in London

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 ‚Äėcentre of life test‚Äô 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 ‚ÄúRegulations‚ÄĚ). 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 ‚Äúa¬† majority shareholder in the overseas business‚ÄĚ.
  • 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 ¬†‚Äėpreviously contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intentions of the Immigration Rules‚Äô,¬† 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. 

    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 (‚Äúthe 2014 Act‚ÄĚ) 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 ¬†(‚Äúthe 2002 Act‚ÄĚ). 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.