Mark Vanhegan KC KC > Chambers of Iain Purvis KC > London, England > Barrister Profile
11 South Square Offices
11 South Square
GRAY'S INN
LONDON
WC1R 5EY
England
- Set Profile
- Go to...
Mark Vanhegan KC KC
Position
Barrister dealing with all aspects of intellectual property law, media and entertainment and technology-related disputes. Appears regularly in all the courts and tribunals in England and Wales as well as Europe relating to intellectual property rights, including CJEU, Supreme Court and the European Patent Office. Also instructed in commercial arbitrations and is frequenty instructed as a mediator and as an expert in determinations. Notable cases include:
Facebook Ireland Limited v Voxer IP LLC [2021] EWHC 1377 (Pat)
Neurim v Mylan [2020] EWHC 3270 (Pat)
Neurim v Generics UK Limited (t/a Mylan) [2020] EWCA Civ 793
Neurim v Generics UK Limited (t/a Mylan) [2020] EWHC 1362 (Pat)
Philips v ASUSTEK, HTC et al [2019] EWCA Civ 2230
Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Incorporation & Ors [2018] EWHC 1826 (Pat)
Koninklijke Philips v Asustek and HTC [2018] EWHC 1732 (Pat)
Koninklijke Philips v Asustek and HTC [2018] EWHC 1224 (Pat)
W3 Ltd v Easygroup Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 7 (Ch)
Generics (UK) Ltd v Yeda Research and Development Co [2017] EWHC 2629 (Pat)
Signature Realty Ltd v Fortis Developments Ltd [2016] EWHC 3583 (Ch)
Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Incorporation & Ors [2016] EWHC 2220;
Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 94 (Pat) Trial B
Pinterest v Premium Interest [2015] EWHC 738;
Jason Rawding v Seaga UK Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 113;
Weatherford Global Products v Hydropath Holdings Ltd [2014] EWHC 2725 (TCC);
Apple v Samsung [2014] EWCA Civ 250;
Magmatic v PMS [2014] EWCA Civ 1925;
Collingwood Lighting v Aurora [2014] EWHC 228;
Nestec SA & Ors v Dualit Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 923 (Pat)
Manvers v Lubetech [2013] EWPCC 3393;
Hollister v Medik Ostomy [2012] EWCA Civ 1419;
Tarbs v Republic of Macedonia [2012] EWHC 1691;
Jones v Ricoh Ltd [2012] EWHC 348;
Bailey v Graham (Reggae Reggae Sauce) [2011] EWHC 3098;
Ate My Heart v Mind Candy (Lady Gaga v Lady Goo Goo) [2011] EWHC 2741;
Becker v OHIM (ECJ) [2010] ETMR 53, [2009] ETMR 38;
Virgin Atlantic v Premium (CA) [2010] FSR 27, [2010] RPC 8;
Virgin Atlantic Airways v Delta (Arnold J) + (CA) [2011] 8 + 18;
Galileo v European Union [2011] ETMR 22;
Kingsway Hall Hotel v Redsky [2010] EWHC (TCC);
Skype & Ebay v Joltid (2009);
Zeno Corp v BSM Bionic [2009] EWHC 1829;
Rousselon Frere v Hurwood [2008] RPC 30 + 31;
Knorr-Bremse v Haldex Brake [2008] FSR 30;
Independiente v Music Trading on-line (CD-WOW) [2008] 1 WLR 608 (CA), [2007] FSR 21;
O2 v H3G [2008] RPC 2 and 3;
Triumph v Eaton [2007] EWHC 1367;
Mastercigars v Hunters & Frankau [2007] RPC 24 (CA);
Navitaire v Easyjet [2006] RPC 2 and 3;
Sabaf v MFI [2005] RPC 10 (HL);
Chinawhite [2005] FSR 10 (CA);
Blayney v Clogau [2002] (CA);
Thibierge & Comar v Rexam [2002] RPC 18;
NLA v Marks & Spencer [2003] 1 AC 551 (HL);
Dyson v Hoover [2002] RPC 42 (CA);
DaimlerBenz v Alavi [2001];
Bruce Springsteen v Masquerade Music [2000] (CA);
Wheatley v Drillsafe [2000] (CA);
Mars v Teknowledge [2002];
ProSeiben v Carlton TV [1999] (CA);
Gerber v Lectra [1997] (CA);
Cavity Trays v RMC [1996] (CA).
Career
Called 1990; QC 2009.
Memberships
IP Bar Association; Chancery Bar Association.
Education
Abingdon School; Trinity College, Cambridge (MA natural sciences & law; 1989 BA, 1992 MA).
Leisure
Hill walking, tennis, travel.
Lawyer Rankings
London Bar > Intellectual property
(Leading Silks)Ranked: Tier 1Mark Vanhegan KC – 11 South Square ‘Mark is versatile, hard working, and he has a collaborative approach, which is greatly appreciated. His advocacy is particularly strong in submissions and he is capable of changing judges’ minds, which means he is always on the shortlist for a new case.’
The members of 11 South Square are sought after by high-profile clients to represent them in intellectual property litigation before all levels of the UK court system, in addition to European fora. The set boasts a large volume of silks in its ranks, including Iain Purvis KC, who handles cases surrounding both patents and trade marks. Of recent note, Purvis KC acted for Tesco in a trade mark infringement case brought by Lidl surrounding the introduction of a new advertising campaign to promote Tesco Clubcard, at issue was the use of a yellow circle on a blue background. Michael Silverleaf KC is strong in cases that require knowledge of technical areas, including monoclonal antibodies, medical devices, and drug delivery systems, as well as wind power generation, automotive catalysts, and shipbuilding. With a scientific background, Mark Vanhegan KC has appeared before the Supreme Court in cases concerning intricate technology, and Piers Acland KC is well known for his pharmaceutical patent work, which is exemplified by his representation of Moderna in a patent trial against Biontech and Pfizer surrounding the Covid-19 vaccine. Anna Edwards-Stuart KC made silk in the 2024 round, and Edward Cronan joined the set from Hogarth Chambers, bringing particular expertise in the patent litigation space.
London Bar > Media and entertainment
(Leading Silks)Ranked: Tier 2Mark Vanhegan KC – 11 South Square ‘Mark is clear and decisive and excellent on his feet. A tremendous asset.’
London Bar > IT and telecoms: projects and services
(Leading Silks)Ranked: Tier 111 South Square offers strong expertise in information technology disputes, especially those which intersect with the related area of IP law. Mark Vanhegan KC, who is regularly sought after by global tech and telecoms companies, continued to act for the defendant in IBM v LzLabs; with the complex dispute regarding alleged software reverse-engineering culminating in a 6-week trial before the High Court in April 2024. Brian Nicholson is adept at handling IP disputes with a substantial electronic and computing element.