The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

Chambers of Nicholas Caddick QC

Work 020 7404 0404
Fax 020 7404 0505

Roger Wyand QC

Work 020 7404 0404
Hogarth Chambers (Chambers of Nicholas Caddick QC)


Joint head of chambers. Barrister specialising in: patents including the whole range of technology from pharmaceutical (BMS v Baker Norton [1999] RPC 253 and [2001] CA RPC 1 second medical use, method of treatment of human body) SKB’s Patent CA [2003] RPC 49; Actavis v Janssen [2008] EWHC 1422; Actavis v Novartis [2009] EWHC Ch 41 and [2010] EWCA Civ 82; genetic engineering MedImmune v Novartis [2012] EWCA Civ 1234; medical devices (Corevalve v Edwards [2008] EWHC; Edwards v Cook [2009] EWHC 1304 and [2010] EWCA Civ 718); to mechanical (Kavanagh v Cameron PCC [2004] RPC 5 prior use, standard of proof; QualChem v Corus [2008] EWPCC 1, [2008] EWCA Civ 177); Broadband Systems Management ASSIA v BT, [2013] EWHC 3768 (Pat), [2014] EWHC (Pat) 4194, [2014] EWCA Civ 1462, EWCA Civ 1513; Agilent v Waters [2002] EWCA Civ 612, [2004] EWHC 2992 and [2005] EWCA Civ 987; patents entitlement proceedings (Ladney and Hendry’s International Application [1998] CA RPC 319 inventorship; meaning of rehearing on appeal); trade marks in Registry High Court and CJEU (formerly ECJ) (Philips v Remington [1999] CA RPC 809 validity of shape registration, referred to ECJ [2003] RPC 2), (Scandecor Development v Scandecor Marketing HoL [2002] FSR 122 passing off, validity of registration under 1994 Act referred to ECJ), (Philips v Remington No 2 [1999] ETMR 835 res judicata and issue estoppel); trade marks, parallel importation (Sony v Tesco [2000] ETMR 102 repackaging); trade marks, distinctiveness under the 1994 Act, Eastenders v Fullers CA [2003] FSR 44; Arsenal v Reed CA [2003] RPC 39; L’Oréal v Bellure [2006] EWHC Ch 2355, [2007] EWCA Civ 968 CA referred to ECJ and [2010] EWCA Civ 535; Reef Trade Mark CA [2003] RPC 5; has taken an appeal from OHIM to the Court of First Instance; use of trade mark by competitor in Google AdWords (Interflora v Marks & Spencer, referred to the CJEU [2011]); Lloyds & Halifax v Shanley [2014] EWCA Civ 407 (copyright licence); computer program copyright and confidential information (Cantor Fitzgerald v Tradition [2000] RPC 95 meaning of substantial part in computer program copyright); copyright in technical drawings (Biotrading v Biohit [1998] CA FSR 109 originality, substantial part, European defence, exclusive distributor); registered designs (Oren v Red Box [1999] FSR 785 right of exclusive licensee, infringement where two configurations shown); unregistered design rights (Ultraframe v Fielding [2003] RPC 23 must fit, must match, subsistence, ownership); principles of assessment of damages (Blayney v Clogau CA [2003] FSR 19 copyright damages); patent damages (Ultraframe v Eurocell [2006] EWHC 1344; Agilent v Waters (settled during trial)); costs awards under the CPR (West v Fuller [2004] CA FSR 32 and Kavanagh v Cameron [2004] CA FSR 33); CTM validity (Compass Publishing BV v Compass Logistics Ltd [2004] RPC 41); shared goodwill in passing off (Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Plc [2004] RPC 36); protectability of Vodka Diageo v ICB [2010] EWHC 17 and [2010] EWCA Civ 920; extended protection for trade marks with a reputation Daimler v Sany [2009] EWHC 2581; unregistered design right (Lambretta v Teddy Smith [2005] CA RPC 6); Community Registered Design rights (Procter and Gamble v Reckitt Benckiser [2006] EWHC 3154 and [2007] EWCA Civ 936); Internet Blocking 20th Century Fox v BT [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch); ] Jack Willis v House of Fraser [2014] EWCH 110 (Ch); Mair v ASOS [2015] EWCA Civ 220; BBC v Sports Direct [2013] EWHC 2200 (Ch), [2013] EWHC 2784 (Ch), [2014] EWHC 91 (Ch). He has mediated in several large IP disputes and commercial licence actions.


Called 1973; Middle Temple; QC 1997; Deputy High Court Judge Patents Court 2004; trained mediator; has sat as an arbitrator and appeared in major arbitration involving patent damages.


Basic French.


International Bar Association (committee); Officer of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law; IPBA; Bar European Group; Chancery Bar Association; associate member of CIPA and ITMA.


Lakefield College School, Canada; Rugby School; Downing College, Cambridge (MA Natural Sciences).


Walking, photography, ice hockey, Arsenal supporter.

London Bar

Intellectual property

Within: Leading Silks

Roger Wyand QC - Hogarth ChambersA creative legal thinker who has the ear of the court and puts clients at ease.

[back to top]

Back to index

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Communiqué on Equity Crowdfunding Is Officially Published

    By way of background, in January 2019, the Capital Markets Board (“ CMB ”) had issued an announcement on its website on the Draft Communiqué on Equity Crowdfunding [1] . The CMB has now officially published the Communiqué on Crowdfunding No. III-35/A (“ Communiqué ”), on October 3, 2019. The Communiqué entered into force as of October 3, 2019.
  • Beneficial Ownership Concept new interpretation from the Russian federal tax service

    The recent interpretative letter issued by the Russian Federal Tax Services (“FTS”) on 08th August 2019, has provided further guidance as to the application of the Beneficial Ownership Concept, further to the letter initially provided on the 12th of April 2018 which adopted a strict approach of the concept. 
  • Cyprus and Netherlands Double Tax Treaty Update

    Cyprus has concluded the negotiations for the avoidance of double taxation with the Netherlands. The double tax treaty was agreed at technocratic level in Hague. It is expected to be signed by the end of 2019 or early in 2020.
  • Vacancy - Senior Corporate Lawyer

    The Senior Corporate Lawyer, who will be reporting to Partners, will be working with both the firm’s legal team as well as the financial services team. The successful candidate will be requested to show initiative, take on certain responsibilities within the firm, work in a multinational environment and will immediately be given the opportunity to further advance their career within the law firm.

    The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on February 26, 2019, in the “Danish Beneficial Ownership Cases”, can be perceived as a landmark on the interpretation of the Beneficial Ownership concept under the Interest and Royalties Directive (IRD) and the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (PSD).
  • 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.

    Italian rules on jointventures concerning public procurement and concession contracts are set out inlight of the European legal framework provided for in Directive 2014/23/EU and 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. The European rules aim to ensurethe best use of public money so that EU citizens benefit from strategicinvestments and services at fair prices. In this context, public procurementand concessions represent key instruments that need to be regulated and standardisedin order to ensure free movement of goods, freedom of establishment and freedomto provide services.
  • 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”.