The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon
ONE SOUTHAMPTON ROW, LONDON, WC1B 5HA, ENGLAND
Tel:
Work 020 7242 8692
Fax:
Fax 020 7405 4166
Email:
Web:
www.carpmaels.com

London: TMT (technology, media and telecoms)

Intellectual property
Intellectual property - ranked: tier 5

Carpmaels & Ransford LLP

The 'excellent team of litigation specialists' at Carpmaels & Ransford LLP has 'access to the top-flight patent attorneys, which is particularly beneficial for technical cases'. The group handles a wide range of patent and trade mark litigation as well as non-contentious advice, and has particular expertise in the life sciences sector. David Wilson handles patent disputes in the pharmaceutical and telecoms sectors, while managing partner Richard Jackson has experience advising on engineering and technology sector patents. Camilla Balleny is 'a superb life sciences litigator'; Ian Kirby is instructed in multi-jurisdictional disputes, Roger Lush heads the trade mark practice, and Jake Marshall is the name to note for transactional matters. Clients also praise senior associate and 'excellent litigator' Jennifer Antcliff, who focuses on biotechnology and pharmaceutical patent litigation and 'is already a star and has a phenomenal future ahead of her'.

Practice head(s):Richard Jackson; David Wilson; Roger Lush; Jake Marshall

Other key lawyers:Camilla Balleny; Ian Kirby; Jennifer Antcliff

Testimonials

'Camilla Balleny combines real technical understanding with excellent people qualities that make her an excellent person to get the best out of her team.'

'Camilla Balleny forges close relationships with the client, ensuring she comes to understand and share its priorities so that she can best tailor the litigation to its needs.'

'Jennifer Antcliff is brilliant, efficient and warm: a combination that clients respect and opponents rightly fear.'

'Kit Carter is another excellent litigator; she rapidly learns to understand the client and its priorities, then fights incredibly hard for them.'

Key Clients

Celgene Corporation

Pacific Biosciences, Inc

Arc Medical Design Limited (owned by Norgine plc)

Align Technology, Inc

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd

Sidley Austin LLP

Manzanita Capital

Janssen Biotech, Inc.

Xeros

Foundation Hubrecht Organoid Technology

Work highlights

  • Acting for Celgene in two patent revocation actions relating to the blockbuster product Revlimid brought by Accord.
  • Representing Align Technology in four patent infringement and revocation actions involving clear dental aligners against ClearCorrect and Your Smile Direct.
  • Advised Foundation Hubrecht Organoid Technology on a worldwide patent and know-how licence agreement with JSR Corporation.
  • Instructed by Manzanita Capital to coordinate a global anti-counterfeiting strategy.
  • Acted for Janssen Biotech in a patent revocation action brought by Lilly relating to a patent covering anti-IL23 p19 antibodies.

[back to top]

PATMA: Patent attorneys
PATMA: Patent attorneys - ranked: tier 1

Carpmaels & Ransford LLP

Carpmaels & Ransford LLP maintains its strong opposition practice around its four key sectors: chemistry, life sciences, engineering and technology. Additionally, the group's solicitors are steadily increasing the litigation caseload, enabling the practice to represent clients in parallel opposition and enforcement proceedings, both in the United Kingdom and abroad. A robust track record of high-profile transactional work completes the group's wide-ranging offering. Managing partner Richard Jackson, head of life sciences Hugh Goodfellow, head of physical sciences John Brunner, head of pharmaceuticals James Warner, biotechnology practice head Mark Chapman, chemistry practice head Gillian McGuire, and engineering and technology practice head Gary Small form the heart of the practice. Life sciences and chemistry expert Harvey Adams joined from Mathys & Squire LLP. Pharmaceutical specialist Matthew Georgiou made partner.

Practice head(s):Richard Jackson; Hugh Goodfellow; John Brunner; James Warner; Mark Chapman; Gillian McGuire; Gary Small

Other key lawyers:Bruce Cockerton; Cameron Marshall; Susan Kirsch; Daniel Wise

Testimonials

'Go-to firm for life-sciences patent prosecution and opposition work in Europe. Unparalleled breadth of experience, technical background and insight. Impressive bandwidth.'

'Carpmaels has the legal and technical talent of a larger firm, but they seem to do a better job placing their people in a position to succeed for their clients. Moreover, the attorneys they have appear to have the right combination of effort and judgement (i.e. the wherewithal not to accept the first solution, but the self-awareness to know when to stop) which is very hard for in-house counsel to teach outside counsel.'

'Very strategic firm. They pay attention to what the clients' real needs are and formulate a strategy to meet those needs.'

'Cameron Marshall is a formidable advocate and strategist in opposition work.'

'Daniel Wise is an excellent strategist and has the ability to engage in detailed aspects of a project while still maintaining perspective of the overall task. A creative problem solver.'

'Bruce Cockerton's communications are always clear and informative and do not require follow-ups for clarification.'

Key Clients

Align Technology, Inc

Biosense Webster

Celgene (Abraxis)

Ethicon, Inc.

Gilead

Janssen Biotechnology

Johnson & Johnson (Consumer)

Johnson & Johnson Vision Care

Merck (MSD)

Modis Therapeutics

Novartis

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Stanford University/ Forty Seven Inc.

4D Pharma PLC

Afiniti Technologies

Barclays

LG Display

Abbott Medical Optics

Work highlights

  • Enforcement and defence of multiple European patents by Align Technology against ClearCorrect.
  • Successfully acted for Gilead, defending three oppositions before the European Patent Office Opposition Divisions in October 2017 (‘633), December 2017 (‘506) and March 2018 (‘294) against multiple opponents.
  • Advised Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and prepared its case. The firm led oral advocacy at opposition proceedings as first opponent in multi-opponent proceedings and was successful in achieving revocation of the patent concerned (EP-B-2990420). This was the second win in this dispute achieved for the client.
  • Acted for Biosense Webster (Israel) Ltd. in the defence of opposition against European patent no. 2 499 968 (two-dimensional Cardiac Mapping).
  • Acted for Celgene (Abraxis Bioscience) in a matter relating to SPCs (supplementary protection certificates) for the product Abraxane. The firm represented the applicant and provided strategic advice at all stages, from the first instance proceedings at the UK-IPO, the UK High Court proceedings which successfully achieved a reference to the CJEU, and most recently as part of the written and oral proceedings at the CJEU.

[back to top]

PATMA: Trade mark attorneys
PATMA: Trade mark attorneys - ranked: tier 1

Carpmaels & Ransford LLP

Carpmaels & Ransford LLP regularly provides extensive trade mark portfolio management services to prestigious clients, including the development and implementation of international trade mark strategies, and representation in opposition proceedings and appeals, as well as in litigation, especially thanks to Jonathan Day's dual qualification as trade mark attorney and solicitor. Licensing and other transactional instructions are another area of strength. The group continues to gain in market share, both in contentious and non-contentious matters, succeeding in attracting several large new portfolios. Day shares the leadership of the practice with Roger Lush. In addition to its central London office, the firm also has a long-established office in Munich.

Practice head(s):Jonathan Day; Roger Lush

Testimonials

'The Carpmaels team are friendly and approachable at all levels from partner down to their very efficient paralegal and admin teams.'

'Creative problem-solving approach. Ability to rapidly assess and implement complex projects. Commercially sound advice.'

'The team is practical, efficient and extremely knowledgeable. It will help you navigate complex questions and challenges around managing your IP portfolio, and help you assess present and future challenges in a simple way.'

'Roger Lush and new associate recruit Thomasin Procter are very good at easing the administrative burden on in-house counsel within the context of global filing programmes.'

'Roger Lush is personable and at the top of his game.'

'Jonathan Day is a great strategic thinker, with a decisive, yet considered approach to handling disputes.'

Key Clients

Allergan

Bear Grylls

Belron

Biogen

Celgene Corporation

GAM Limited

John Deere

McIlhenny Company

Polaroid

Western Digital/SanDisk

Work highlights

  • Conducted large-scale international trade mark clearance projects for Celgene Corporation.
  • Conducted a trade mark clearance project for Xeros Limited, assisted with the drafting and filing of new trade mark applications, and representing the client, which the firm has advised since its inception, in contentious cases.
  • Assisted 4D Pharma with trade mark clearance projects; the development of its trade mark portfolio, including application drafting and filing; and representation in prosecution proceedings.
  • Advised Manzanita Capital on and co-ordinated a global anti-counterfeiting strategy, including customs actions, website and social media takedowns, domain recovery, and representation in litigation in both civil and criminal law disputes. Provided ongoing assistance with trade mark clearance projects.
  • Co-ordinated Bear Grylls Ventures LLP's global trade mark activities, involving trade mark clearance projects, trade mark portfolio development, and representation in opposition proceedings and litigation.

[back to top]

Pharmaceuticals and biotechnology
Pharmaceuticals and biotechnology - ranked: tier 4

Carpmaels & Ransford LLP

Well known for its outstanding patent protection and enforcement capabilities, Carpmaels & Ransford LLP acts for an impressive range of big pharma and biotech clients. It also helps smaller and startup clients, many of which are involved in cutting-edge science, to grow. In addition to providing end-to-end patent abilities, it assists clients with areas such as licensing and collaborations. Specialist partners spearhead this work - David Wilson, Hugh Goodfellow,  Mark Chapman and James Warner - backed up by skilled teams. Patent litigator Simon Llewellyn  has joined the team from Bird & Bird LLP.

Practice head(s):David Wilson; Hugh Goodfellow; Mark Chapman; James Warner

Other key lawyers:Simon Llewellyn

Key Clients

Abraxis Bioscience (Owned by the Celgene biotechnology group)

Allergan

Celgene Corporation

Fibrogen

Foundation Hubrecht Organoid Technology

Gilead

Janssen Biotech, Inc. (a Johnson & Johnson company)

Johnson and Johnson

Novartis

Pacific Biosciences, Inc.

Stanford University / Forty Seven, Inc.

4D Pharma PLC

Work highlights

  • Acted for Abraxis BioScience LLC (owned by the Celgene biotechnology group) on a referral to the European Court of Justice regarding the law relating to SPCs. Abraxis’s SPC application was based on the ABRAXANE® authorisation and a related patent.
  • Acted for Novartis regarding a patent relating to its blockbuster medicine Exforge for the treatment of hypertension. Successfully defended the patent before the EPO against eight opponents and  also provided extensive support in national litigation in numerous countries.  
  • Represented Pacific Biosciences, a California-based company specialising in real time DNA sequencing in two High Court patent infringement and revocation proceedings between PacBio and Oxford Nanopore Technologies, a UK-based company specialising in nanopore sequencing methods.
  • Acted for Foundation Hubrecht Organoid Technology on worldwide patent and know-how licence agreement between Hubrecht Organoid Technology and JSR Corporation, the parent company of Crown Bioscience.  
  • Acted for Janssen Biotech (a Johnson & Johnson company) in a patent revocation action relating to a patent  for the treatment of psoriasis which was commenced by Lilly.

[back to top]


Further information on Carpmaels & Ransford LLP

Please choose from this list to view details of what we say about Carpmaels & Ransford LLP in other jurisdictions.

London

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. 
  • PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS ‚Äď 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 (‚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.