Considered ‘the best set in the market for IT and telecoms disputes‘, the set at 4 Pump Court often acts in high-value matters, involving regulators, users, and providers of IT services. In BT v Tii Technologies Ltd, Alex Charlton KC led Matthew Lavy KC, acting jointly for the claimant in a dispute surrounding the supply of defective equipment, a claim originally estimated at £80m. Lavy was also instructed by Nigel Tozzi KC in multiple cases involving IBM, including Direct Line v IBM, a claim with respect to the design and construction of an enterprise data warehouse. In addition, Tozzi acted alongside Lavy and Iain Munro in CIS General Insurance v IBM, a dispute regarding the failed implementation of a new IT platform for The Co-operative Group's insurance business following the sale of The Co-operative Bank.

With a ‘good range of barristers‘, intellectual property-led set 8 New Square specializes in work relating to FRAND licensing, with further expertise in telecoms disputes and liability of internet intermediaries. In InterDigital Technology Corp v Lenovo Group Ltd, Mark Chacksfield KC acted on behalf of the claimant, going up against Daniel Alexander KC in a high-profile FRAND dispute focused on the essentiality and validity of a patent in connection with a non-contention based control channel. Jaani Riordan is acting for the defendant in Philips v Xiaomi, an ongoing dispute concerning Philips’ SEP portfolio, focused on determining the correct approach to global FRAND portfolio licenses and questioning a defence based on ETSI licenses under foreign law.

Recognized as a ‘go to chambers for technology claims’, the barristers at Atkin Chambers have particular expertise in high-profile IT projects, often crossing over with the set’s expertise in construction work. In British Telecommunications PLC v TII Technologies Limited, Patrick Clarke was instructed on behalf of the defendant, in a claim relating to the supply and performance of connection hardware installed across the BT Openreach network. In addition, David Streatfeild-James KC acted for an insurance company in a dispute concerning IBM’s delivery of an Extract Transform Load framework, forming part of a project aimed at updating and replacing an IT system used by the insurer to manage claims and policy renewals.

The barristers at 11 South Square showcase combined expertise in intellectual property and telecoms disputes, often acting for major clients in cases with a crossover element. Appearing before the Court of Appeal, Michael Silverleaf KC acted for the Ministry of Defence in IPCom v Vodafone, intervening with the agreement of the parties, regarding the crown use provisions of Patents Act 1977; the case involves a technology that can be used to prioritize emergency services users over the mobile phone network. In Philips v Xiaomi, Mark Vanhegan KC represents the claimant in connection with patents declared to be essential to 3G and 4G standards. Vanhegan also went up against Brian Nicholson, who represented the defendant, in Facebook v Voxer, a dispute focused on a patent revocation action.

Active across a range of matters, the members at Devereux act for major local and overseas telecom and infrastructure providers. In BT v TalkTalk Communications Limited, Graham Read KC acted on behalf of BT, seeking £16m of electronic communication service payments allegedly withheld by TalkTalk. Also acting on this case was Rory Cochrane, who further represented BT in a nuisance claim in connection with water damage at a claimant’s basement, alleged to have been caused by one of BT’s chambers. Shaen Catherwood acted for the defendant in Amadeo v BT, a claim for alleged damages in combination with an injunction to restrain acts of trespass and nuisance, targeted at independent sub-contractors on site – a dispute now settled.

With expertise in telecoms and IT infringement actions, the barristers at Three New Square represent multinational technology clients, digital service providers and software developers. Guy Burkill KC represented Apple and its distributors in Optis v Apple, a high-profile telecoms patent dispute. Also in Optis v Apple, Joe Delaney represented the defendant, while Thomas Hinchliffe KC acted for Optis. In addition, Delaney successfully acted for the patentee in InterDigital v Lenovo, a dispute revolving around standard-essential telecoms patents applicable to 4G/LTE mobile phone networks.