Mark Vanhegan 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
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 a class act. He is calm and thorough in court and he is often the difference between winning and losing a case.’
11 South Square is well-known for its work on leading IP cases in first instance trials and appeals, and its members are well-versed in appearing before the European Patent Office, General Court, and Court of Justice of the European Union. Iain Purvis KC has an all-encompassing IP practice, from patents to trade marks, and Michael Silverleaf KC is notable in cases involving complex technical facts, including monoclonal antibodies, medical devices, drug delivery systems, automotive catalysts, and wind power generation. Of recent note, he acted for the claimant in Original Beauty Technology Company & Others v G4K Fashion & Oh Polly, which concerned claims of passing off and infringement of design rights. With his scientific background, Mark Vanhegan KC is regularly instructed by high-profile clients across all levels of courts and tribunals, and he successfully represented Philips in a trial concerning the validity of two of its patents. The set is also home to patent expert Piers Acland KC, and Hugo Cuddigan KC, who has substantial experience in the music and entertainment industries.
London Bar > Media and entertainment
(Leading Silks)Ranked: Tier 2Mark Vanhegan KC – 11 South Square ‘Highly client-friendly, and gives clear and robust advice. Both written and oral advocacy is very good indeed and pitched perfectly to the tribunal he is addressing.’
London Bar > IT and telecoms (infrastructure and contracts)
(Leading Silks)Ranked: Tier 1Mark Vanhegan KC – 11 South Square ‘Very on the ball. Cooperative. Able to ask the key questions in cross-examination.’
Members at 11 South Square have extensive experience in high-level technology disputes and are frequently instructed to act in disputes at the intersection of IP and IT law. With a combination of decades of experience in the field and technical backgrounds, members are particularly well-placed to handle complex disputes acting for high-profile technology clients. Mark Vanhegan KC appeared for LzLabs in IBM UK Limited v LzLabs, a dispute relating to alleged breaches of agreements pertaining to mainframe computer systems and raising issues about software copyright and reverse engineering.