McDermott Will & Emery has become the latest firm to increase pay for London associates, raising salaries for newly qualified (NQ) associates to $225,000 as competition for talent among firms in the City intensifies.
Effective from 1 January, the Chicago-headquartered firm will raise London associate pay from the current rate of £147,500 ($190,000), matching the so-called ‘Cravath scale’ for associate compensation, named after the elite US firm known for establishing salary benchmarks.
Cravath Swaine & Moore’s latest rates, announced in November 2023, set NQ pay at $225,000, with $235,000 for second-years and $260,000 for third-years, rising to $420,000 and $435,000 for seventh- and eighth-years respectively.
London managing partner Aymen Mahmoud (pictured) told Legal Business: ‘Our focus is on being the very best, and to do that we need to recruit and retain the very best. With this change, we think we are now at the top of UK associate compensation.’
McDermott will also match Cravath’s bonuses, but with adjustments that give associates the potential to earn even more.
Mahmoud continued: ‘We already know our culture to be a key differentiator; now we have yet another. We are very excited about the future for our talented group of associates and seeing the greatness that they can achieve.’
While the conversion rate into British pounds varies from firm to firm, McDermott will now stand alongside other leading US firms such as Milbank, which offers an NQ salary of $225,000. Paul Weiss, Gibson Dunn, and Quinn Emanuel are also in this salary bracket, with starting salaries for newly qualified associates at £180,000 in London.
While competition for top talent is fierce, the sustained pay increases for NQ lawyers have prompted much eyebrow-raising among the wider market. Hannah Benger, business director at Montresor Legal told LB: ‘The continual upward trend of premium US firm salaries invites the inevitable question – how long is it until the first firm announces a £200,000 salary for NQs? One assumes it will be soon.’
‘It’s important for the mid-market to really differentiate themselves in what they can offer their lawyers,’ Benger adds. ‘Vastly improved working hours, less intense expectations and highly flexible working policies are just a few options that would make them genuinely attractive to a lot of lawyers who might otherwise be tempted by the “big money” option.’
Salaries at leading US-headquartered firms continue to outstrip those on offer at the top of the UK market, with the biggest four Magic Circle firms recently increasing NQ pay to £150,000. David von Dadelszen, director at James Legal comments: ‘Big US firms seem to be able to reflect high NQ salaries up the bandings, but most UK firms can’t.’
‘Associates aren’t mugs – they read the press and speak with each other/recruiters,’ he added.
In recent months, McDermott’s London office has experienced a wave of change. Alongside Mahmoud’s promotion to managing partner, private equity veteran Graham White has stepped in as London senior partner. The firm has also bolstered its ranks with notable laterals including debt finance heavyweight Chris Kandel from MoFo and private equity partner Fatema Orjela from Sidley.
Clifford Chance (CC) has become the third magic circle to reveal its financial results for 2023-24, posting global revenue growth of 9% to £2.3bn, up from 5% last year.
Profit, meanwhile, saw double-digit growth of 10%, up to £856m.Profit per equity partner (PEP) was up slightly from £2m to £2.04m, back to the figure reported in 2021-22 after a slight dip last year.
Commenting on the results, global managing partner Charles Adams said: ‘In another year of very strong performance, our record profits have enabled us to make substantial investments in our global team and operations. These strategic investments are already yielding benefits for our clients and our firm and position us for long-term success.’
When discussing the drivers of growth, Adams highlighted CC’s global litigation and disputes resolution and regulatory investigations teams, which accounted for more than 20% of the firm’s total income. He also emphasised the firm’s focus on the energy transition and infrastructure investment, as well as the technology sectors.
The firm’s private capital sector was also highlighted, noting that in 2023, CC advised on 224 M&A deals with a total value of $208bn. Standout mandates during the year included advising Partners Group on the sale of public sector cloud software company Civica, while the firm has also been working with longstanding FTSE 100 client Informa on its £1.2bn offer for Ascential and acting for Unilever on the sale of its water purification business, Pureit, to water technology company A. O. Smith.
Over in the US, the firm saw a 28% increase in revenue. ‘We are making great progress everywhere, but fastest in the US,’ commented Adams.
Along with its newly opened Houston office, and its offices in New York and Washington, the firm added a total of 19 partners during the year, bringing total number in the US to 115. Notable hires include New York finance partner Jason Ewart, who joined from Latham & Watkins, and energy and infrastructure partner Marcia Hook, who moved from Kirkland & Ellis in Washington.
In the firm’s Houston office, which has been open for just over a year, partner headcount has doubled to 14, with a total of 41 fee earners. New hires include M&A partner Jonathan Bobinger, who joined from Baker Botts, and energy and infrastructure partner Jonathan Castelan, who moved from Latham to co-head the firm’s energy transition group.
The firm’s US progress will be closely watched by market peers given recent successes enjoyed by its magic circle competitors, with Freshfields making strides across the pond with an impressive run of high-profile hires, and Allen & Overy securing its long-awaited merger with Shearman & Sterling to form A&O Shearman.
Shopping centre owners have weathered a difficult few years, with the rise of e-commerce, Covid and the cost of living crisis causing much grief for those with stakes in bricks and mortar retail.
There is cause for optimism, however, with private equity firm L Catterton’s acquisition of Hammerson’s £1.5bn stake in Value Retail – owner of the Bicester Collection – emblematic of increasing confidence in the sector, and raising hopes of a continued recovery in deal activity.
Slaughter and May advised Hammerson on the transaction, which generated approximately £600m in cash proceeds for the property firm, fielding a team led by corporate duo Simon Tysoe and Richard Smith.
Meanwhile, Latham & Watkins advised the buyers, with the sale handled through Silver Bidco Limited, a newly formed company incorporated in Jersey established by affiliates of L Catterton, which is part owned by luxury goods giant LVMH. The firm’s London team was led by corporate partners Tom Evans and Linzi Thomas.
The Bicester Collection comprises nine luxury designer outlet shopping centres located outside of major European cities including Barcelona, Paris and Milan. It includes the Bicester Village shopping centre which is located on the outskirts of the Oxfordshire town Bicester.
Rita-Rose Gagné, CEO of Hammerson, said in a statement that the disposal was a ‘transformational deal’ that removed an ‘overweight, low yielding and minority stake’ and ‘focuses our portfolio on prime urban real estate’.
Hammerson has in the past turned to Herbert Smith Freehills for many of its major corporate and real estate mandates, including the £277m disposal of its stake in premium outlet operator Via Outlets in Q4 of 2020, led by corporate duo Alex Kay and Mike Flockhart. Kay also led on Hammerson’s attempted £3.2bn buyout of Intu in 2018, a transaction that was ultimately abandoned.
Another sign of increasing bullishness in the retail space was seen last month with TDR Capital’s acquisition of Zuber Issa’s shares in Asda, a deal that took the private equity firm’s share in Asda to 67.5%. Kirkland & Ellis advised TDR, led by corporate partners Stuart Boyd and Jessica Corr alongside competition partners Alasdair Balfour and Joel Gory, while Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton acted for Issa.
Addleshaw Goddard LLP are pleased to invite you to the next instalment of the firm’s combined legal access scheme Ethnicity.Talent.Law.
There will be two events held: one in Leeds and one in London.
The aim of the scheme is to bring together students from ethnically diverse backgrounds studying at universities in Leeds, London and surrounding areas with people from Addleshaw Goddard LLP as part of a growing effort to increase ethnic diversity within the legal sector.
The Autumn instalment of Ethnicity.Talent.Law saw lawyers from Addleshaw Goddard LLP share their tips, stories, experiences and challenges in obtaining and undertaking a training contract at the firm. The Early Careers team provided an insight in how to approach training contract applications.
In the Spring session, we will focus on trainee life as well as giving some important guidance on succeeding as a trainee from those who work closely with trainees.
When/Where?
Leeds – Monday 22 April 2024 – 15:30 – 18:00. Sign up here.
London – Monday 29 April 2024 – 15.30 – 18:00. Sign up here.
Paul Weiss has broken through the $2bn global revenue mark, posting a 10.8% hike on last year, as the firm’s bold London recruitment drive continues to make headlines.
The firm’s 178 equity partners took home an average of $6.5m in 2023, with profit per equity partner (PEP) up 14.8% from $5.73m the previous year.
Overall profit came in at $1.17bn, while revenue per lawyer was up 5.3% to $1.98m from last year’s $1.88m.
In recent months, Paul Weiss has recruited some of the City’s biggest hitters, among a total of 17 partner hires. Most have joined from Kirkland & Ellis, following the defections of debt finance superstar Neel Sachdev and big-name corporate partner Roger Johnson in August. The duo joined to lead the US firm’s London office, initiating a wave of hires aimed at building up a substantial English law practice.
Sachdev brought with him a Kirkland team including debt finance partner Kanesh Balasubramaniam and capital markets partners Matthew Merkle and Deirdre Jones, while Johnson has assembled an M&A practice with ex-Kirkland partner Andreas Philipson, as well as a tax practice featuring former Kirkland partners Timothy Lowe and Cian O’Connor.
Other names joining from Kirkland have included debt finance partner Stefan Arnold-Soulby and technology and intellectual property transactions specialist John Patten.
Paul Weiss has also targeted the Magic Circle, starting with the hire of Linklaters M&A partner Will Aitken-Davies in September. Notably, Lowe, O’Connor and Patten also had stints at Linklaters.
In December, it came as no surprise when Paul Weiss hired from Linklaters again, bringing on Nicole Kar, the former head of the Magic Circle firm’s antitrust and foreign investment practice. Adding to the Linklaters alumni, the following month the firm hired public M&A partner Dan Schuster-Woldan.
Clifford Chance has also been a target, with high-profile private equity partner Christopher Sullivan and acquisition finance partner Taner Hassan coming over in December, and just last week (18 March), junior private equity partner Oliver Marcuse followed suit.
Outside of the Magic Circle, Paul Weiss has also hired former Ropes & Gray competition partner Annie Herdman, who also served at Kirkland earlier in her career.
The recruitment drive has seen a complete changing-of-the guard for Paul Weiss in London, which has had a modest City presence without English law capability since 2001. Last May deputy London head Ramy Wahbeh and corporate partner Kaisa Kuusk both left to join Sidley, followed by the departure of London managing partner Alvaro Membrillera to Kirkland in early August, a move which was one of a number of factors which sparked the flurry of moves in the opposite direction.
On the back of the new additions, the firm announced in October it was set to move into Twitter’s former UK headquarters in Soho.
Recent London deal highlights for Paul Weiss have included advising General Atlantic on its acquisition of a majority stake in coffee shop Joe & the Juice from Valedo Partners, with Johnson and Balasubramaniam working alongside partners in the US.
The seven billion dollar law firm
Despite the departures in London, Kirkland has consolidated its position as the largest law firm in the world, with global revenue increasing by 10% last year to $7.2bn, according to The American Lawyer.
The firm’s 539 equity partners took home an average of $8m as PEP increased 5.8%, with overall profit standing at $4.3bn. RPL also increased by 7.5% from $1.9m last year, to $2.05m.
As well as highly regarded private equity partner Membrillera, the firm has made a number of other significant recent additions to its team, including debt finance partners Ian Barratt and Sinead O’Shea, who joined from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, while Herbert Smith Freehills ESG head Rebecca Perlman also recently came on board in London.
O’Shea, alongside London debt finance colleague Jerome Hoyle, were recently part of a global team advising KKR on financing for its voluntary public takeover offer to all shareholders of Encavis, a leading German wind and solar park operator.
The firm’s restructuring team has also handled a number of significant mandates of late, such as advising global engineering and construction business McDermott International on the cross-border restructuring of around $2.6bn of the group’s secured debt facilities.
In 2023 Kirkland also opened a new office in Riyadh, recruiting corporate partner Noor Al-Fawzan and capital markets Manal Al-Musharaf from Latham & Watkins and White & Case respectively, to join the 20th global office of the Chicago giant.
The north’s finest were out in force last week for the second-ever Legal 500 Northern Powerhouse Awards.
This year the awards were held in Leeds – handily timed to co-ordinate with the city being named the best place to live in the north.
Future Lawyers firms DLA Piper, Addleshaw Goddard and CMS scooped up reams of well-deserved awards. You can see the full list of winners, along with photos of the night here.
Congratulations to all the winners, and thanks to sponsors Deminor Litigation Funding. After Manchester last year, there was much discussion on the night about where next year’s event should be held. Let us know what you think!
In the latest instalment of the Future Lawyers blog, Katie O’Brien, law and Spanish student at the University of Strathclyde looks into PFAS and how we can reduce their impact on the environment.
Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances, otherwise known as PFAS, are a group of synthetic, man-made chemicals. Their prominence in manufacturing stems from their non-stick properties resisting heat, oil, stains, and grease.
Although used largely in the aviation industry, the creation of the non-stick pan and marketisation of ‘Teflon,’ a form of PFA, invited these harsh and unnatural chemicals into the domestic environment. Hence now they have become a ubiquitous part of modern life. From food packaging, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paints, school uniforms, toilet paper, teabags, and period products. PFAS are everywhere. But how bad are they really?
PFAS are often referred to as “forever chemicals” as they take years to break down due to their extremely strong chemical bond. This has resulted in elevated levels of PFA contamination in our environment and wildlife, from fish in our local rivers to polar bears hunting in the far north of the Artic Sea.
Levels of PFAS have now been detected in our drinking water. Expertise from the Manchester Met featured in a report from the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) on PFAS chemicals. The report reveals than a third of water courses tested in England and Wales contain forever chemicals. Our level of exposure to these chemicals is so great that it is estimated 97% of the global population contain traces of PFAS in our bodies.
Even small doses of the forever chemicals have been linked to cancer, thyroid disease, kidney disease, as well as reproductive and immune system harm. In a study published by The Lancet Planetary Health, the University of Aberdeen and Örebro University used extensive metabolic profiling of 78 foetuses to demonstrate that the existence of PFAS in everyday products can even increase the risk of disease in unborn children.
Professor Paul Fowler, Chair in Translational Medicine at the University of Aberdeen, states, “We found PFAS in the livers of the foetuses, and unfortunately, the results provide strong evidence that exposure to these forever chemicals in the womb affects the unborn child.” The extensive health risks and impact on our wildlife and ecosystems is what makes PFAS extremely dangerous or as referred to by Richard Benwell, CEO of Wildlife and Countryside Link, “a toxic timebomb”.
Although consumer desires for more transparent practices within companies is growing and the commercial market faces more challenges to ensure they are operating sustainably, there is currently no statutory requirement restricting the level of PFAS in drinking water in England and Wales.
The EU has proposed tighter restrictions of the use of the chemical through EU REACH (the EU regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation, and restriction of chemicals) which could lead to a ban of over 10,000 PFAS. This has the potential to fundamentally change the materials used in thousands of products and prevent further damage to the environment and our health.
However, in a post-Brexit landscape, certain chemical protections are at risk of being weakened through the retained EU Law Bill process, which currently gives the government the power to amend or revoke key pieces of chemical legislation. The UK now operates under its own REACH programme in which only two forms of PFAS are restricted.
The regulation of PFAS is as much a business issue as it is an issue of insufficient policy. Companies must be forced to take greater accountability for their practices. The majority of products containing PFAS can be manufactured using more sustainable materials and have no legitimate claim requiring the use of PFAS.
S.172 of the Companies Act 2006 hints at a company director’s duty of corporate social responsibility. It states a company must have regard to ‘the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment’. However, as seen by the distinct lack of action regarding the use of toxic chemicals, in practice this legislation is so subjective it fails to truly regulate corporations to the necessary level.
An investigation conducted by non-profit environmental organisation ChemSec, into the twelve biggest PFAS producers shows “PFAS” is rarely mentioned in the company reports. In fact, seven out of twelve companies do not mention it all. In comparison, the word ‘sustainability’ is collectively mentioned 1,913 times by the companies in the reports.
Without the right understanding of the dangers of PFAS or the ability to recognise their use, corporations can continually capitalise from consumer compliance, largely without legal intervention. The study itself shows the corporate profits from the production of PFAS are minimal compared to the global societal costs – health and remediation – of PFA chemicals, which amount to £13 trillion per year.
Enhancing public awareness of the dangers of PFAS is a necessary step towards greater consumer empowerment and allows us to call for significant government and corporate accountability. However, the harsh reality is that given their almost indestructible nature, once these chemicals are in the environment and our bodies, there is no way to remove them.
Therefore, it is vital we place a greater focus on implementing stricter regulation and standards upon toxic chemical use. Adopting a clear framework of social responsibility should not be a choice amongst the biggest corporations and polluters, but a necessity.
Despite having the common goal of qualifying as a solicitor, everyone will have slightly different priorities when choosing where to do their training contract.
Whether your aim is to get as much client contact as possible, work on headline-making deals or earn a sky-high salary, it’s important to find out exactly what each firm has to offer before you apply.
In this blog we set out some of the most important considerations when choosing a law firm:
Practice area
One of the first and most important things to consider is whether the firm actually has a department or team practising the area of law you’re most interested in.
A firm can win countless awards and be making headlines daily, but if it doesn’t have a property department and you want to be a property lawyer, it’s probably not for you.
Equally, if you’re interested in a niche area of finance or corporate law, you will need to check first that the firm practises that particular type of law.
Some law students and prospective trainees will know from the outset that they want to be a corporate or finance lawyer and may set their sights on the City, international or US firms. These firms often have plenty of advertising and marketing materials available and are relatively easy to find.
Other prospective trainees will know that they want to be a family or employment lawyer, or even an art or sports lawyer. A bit more research might be needed to find firms which specialise in these areas.
Whichever area of law you think you’ll want to qualify into, it’s best to go into your training contract with an open mind.
Law in practice can be very different to what you study at law school. It’s definitely worth waiting to see which area of law you actually enjoy working in day to day before you make your final decision.
Consult The Legal 500 to see which firms practice in your preferred areas of law.
Inclusiveness
It’s no good if a law firm is a specialist in its field if it isn’t inclusive. You will want to be confident that you can bring your whole self to work, regardless of socioeconomic background, ethnicity, sexuality or just your personality.
Despite the legal industry having a bit of a fusty reputation, most law firms have made inroads and now have much more diverse and inclusive workforces than in previous decades.
Many firms also have plenty of diversity initiatives in place – whether it’s a LGBTQ+ networking group or a parent lawyer society.
If you’re wondering how you’ll fit in at a firm, consult our inclusiveness winners table to see which firms came up trumps in this arena.
Approachability
The key to a successful training contract is often the supervision. And that supervision needs to come from someone who is approachable.
Supervisors can be senior associates, partners or any solicitor who is qualified and more senior than you, but a good supervisor should be getting you involved in their work, answering questions and giving you regular feedback so that you can improve.
Look out for firms that have an ‘open-door policy’, which means that you can freely knock on a senior lawyer’s door to ask a question, no matter how silly it may seem!
Client contact
Dealing with clients is a huge part of being a solicitor. During your training, you will learn how to manage and communicate with clients. This might be through observing your supervisor or by meeting with clients directly.
Bear in mind that at larger firms, it’s unlikely you’ll be having high levels of contact with clients in your junior years. This is because big firms tend to have big clients, and the deals they’re involved in can be complex. Client contact at these firms will be largely reserved for partners and senior lawyers.
At mid-sized and smaller firms you are much more likely to be put in front of a client early on. This could include drafting emails, calling a client or even attending client meetings, with (or sometimes even without) your supervisor.
Compare how trainees rated their firms for client contact here.
Salary
There’s no getting away from the fact that how much you get paid might influence where you want to work.
Some US and City law firms pay eye-wateringly high salaries which are sure to grab your attention as you browse their websites and brochures. It goes without saying that you’ll be required to work very hard in return for these competitive packages. Still, it’s nice to know that your hard graft is valued.
Always consider the NQ salary when making your decision. NQ salaries are often significantly higher than trainee salaries and if you’re hoping to stay on at the firm post qualification, this is the amount you can expect to be paid longer term.
Smaller firms will not pay as much as their City counterparts. The trade-off however is probably (though not always!) a much better work/life balance and earlier responsibility.
Salary is a very important thing to consider when choosing where to apply. No amount of money will make up for you feeling unhappy when you’re working day and night, but feeling like your hard work is not adequately compensated can feel equally frustrating.
Consult our salary winners table to find out how much you can expect to get paid at each firm.
Work/Life balance
Yes it’s fulfilling, but law can be an intense career path. Tales of missing out on birthdays, dinners and even holidays because of work deadlines are not uncommon and, although perhaps more frequent at larger firms, lawyers at all types of firms will likely encounter late nights at one point or another.
Some law firms have a better track record of promoting a healthy work/life balance than others. Year on year we are told by trainees at certain firms that their colleagues respect that they have a life outside of work. If this is high on your agenda, have a look at our work/life balance table.
Work/life balance is something that is likely to greatly impact your training experience and is not something to take lightly.
Social life
OK, so social life may not be your top priority when choosing a law firm. But in reality it’s good to know that your colleagues are going to be a sociable bunch who enjoy a drink at the pub or a game of football on a Thursday evening.
As a law graduate, the first step in your career is a vital one. It’s important to get broad experience, acquire a good understanding of the law and appreciate the commercial side of the business. Only then can you decide which area to specialise in.
As a trainee at Cripps you’ll experience different practice areas covering all aspects of commercial property, corporate and commercial law as well as private client matters. You’ll carry out challenging and interesting work for a wide range of clients from blue chip household names and entrepreneurial businesses to high net worth private clients. You’ll also be supported throughout your contract, and encouraged to express your opinions and be yourself.
The recruitment window is now open and will close on 29 February 2024. Apply using the link below.
Marie Johansen Nordland talks to leading London lawyers about patent trends in the life sciences sector.
Buzz about blockbuster drug developments, expiring patents and the launch of the European Union’s Unified Patent Court – 2023 certainly kept the life sciences sector on its toes.
Against a backdrop of several of the world’s best-selling drugs nearing their patent expiration dates and the market getting to grips with the implications of the long-awaited EU patent court, leading practitioners at UK law firms provide their perspective on the evolving world of IP and patent litigation in the life sciences sector – and what these changes mean for corporates and their in-house legal teams.
A biologics patent cliff?
‘Patent litigation is as busy as it’s always been,’ says Clare Tunstall, head of the IP and life sciences department at Pinsent Masons. ‘There are more blockbuster patents going off patents in the next five years than there have been in the last five. The ones that are now coming off are the top five or six, all at the same time – some big biologics. We’re going to see a lot of intense patent litigation,’ she adds.
‘The patent cliff for biologics is happening, and it’s happening now,’ echoes her fellow Pinsents partner Christopher Sharp.
Stephen Bennett, partner at Hogan Lovells, agrees that there is a lot of litigation in the pipeline on big drugs right now but is less convinced that there’s a patent cliff. ‘We’ve certainly had this before, where people have reported what they call a patent cliff, where it’s just so happened that a group of products that have become big had similar expiry dates on their key patents.’
More generally partners say clients are increasingly happy to litigate. ‘Clients are more willing to challenge patents now than perhaps historically would have been the case,’ says Tunstall. ‘When I started, it was unheard of for an innovator to go up against another innovator, but now you have to – this is a trend that’s been going on for a while, but we’ll continue to see an increase in this,’ she adds.
‘We have clients coming in wanting to challenge and enforce patents as part of their business model, rather than as a last resort.’ Christopher Sharp, Pinsent Masons
‘Clients are less afraid of litigation’, agrees Sharp. ‘We have clients coming in wanting to challenge and enforce patents as part of their business model, rather than as a last resort.’
Significantly, this increase in patent litigation isn’t just happening at the point of patent expiry but is also now happening throughout the full life cycle of drug discovery. As Bennett notes: ‘What we’ve had more of lately is litigation before product launch. New entrants in the market and existing players bringing new products see that there are issues with the patents of other innovators, and to remedy the issue, they want to sort the patent picture out pre-launch. We have seen an uptick in that. It’s a different sort of litigation, and it’s quite exciting for us because normally we’re litigating things that have been on the market for 10-15 years,’ he says.
The biosimilar boom
Another trend pointed out by partners is how drug and technology developments are changing client approaches to legal advice. ‘I think today’s blockbusters have pretty much gone – is anyone going to find a new Lipitor or a new Viagra? I don’t think so,’ argues Sally Shorthose, joint head of the international life sciences regulatory group at Bird & Bird. Instead, the market is moving towards more advanced, specialised therapies, such as gene editing technology CRISPR, personalised cancer treatments, antibody therapies, and, notably, biosimilars. ‘We’re finally seeing the boom of biosimilars now (…) For ten years it was something like one a year, now there’s several in the UK currently running,’ says Sharp.
The shift from traditional biologics to biosimilars means a change in approach for in-house legal teams and innovators. Bennett emphasises that there are different regulatory regimes for different classes of drugs, as well as different systems for reimbursements for such products, which patent lawyers and in-house teams need to consider.
‘Patent lawyers have to think about a whole new regulatory area. If you’re litigating the patents, all of that is relevant. And so what we’re seeing is that coming more to the fore, in the consideration of patent lawyers, they’re having to assimilate.’
The changes also mean in-house legal teams need to adjust their approaches and strategies. While the biological compounds used in the manufacture of biologics are relatively easy to produce in a lab, the production of antibody therapies and biosimilars is different. Likewise, technological advances such as CRISPR and the advent of AI bring further new challenges.
RelatedSponsored thought leadership: China life sciences – Transaction insights and notable industry trends
‘It’s a different sort of litigation, and it’s quite exciting for us because normally we’re litigating things that have been on the market for 10-15 years.’ Stephen Bennett, Hogan Lovells
Inga-Marlene Pietsch, an IP special counsel at Covington in London, points out that these new therapies require a manufacturing process so highly specialised that a company seeking to protect its product will have to look to other parts of IP law to do so. ‘Traditional innovators are more familiar with patents at the patent protection stage, but in-house teams will need to get familiar with other rights such as copyright and trade secrets,’ Pietsch warns. ‘There’s an increasing crossover between life sciences and technology; needs are changing in terms of more general and broader advice being required. Clients have more questions related to trade secrets as well as general questions around protectability, as opposed to what we’ve observed previously.’
To address this, private practice lawyers highlight the growing importance of cross-departmental collaboration, with technology teams and regulatory practices. ‘Clients need the combined skills,’ says Jane Summerfield, co-head of Hogan Lovells’ life sciences and health care industry group and life sciences regulatory and commercial practice head in London. ‘We’re working more with our colleagues who work with clients in the early stages,’ echoes Bennett, ‘and with our regulatory teams, particularly in the US and the EU.’
The New World of the UPC
Another key driver of activity is the new EU Unified Patent Court. The court, which started operating in June 2023 after a long wait, has exclusive competence in respect of European patents and patent applications across its contracting member states. The UK, originally a signatory to the 2013 UPC Agreement, formally withdrew its ratification of the treaty in July 2020, leaving UK corporates and their in-house legal teams uncertain of their place in (or outside) the new regime.
‘We’re seeing more activity from the life sciences in the UPC than was originally anticipated,’ says Tunstall, adding that ‘no discussion around strategy is safe without discussion of your UPC strategy.’
‘Lots of patentees opted out in the beginning, but so far all the decisions have appeared very patentee friendly,’ notes Pietsch, adding that ‘the UPC could be a serious forum for patentees to seek patent enforcement if it keeps developing as it has been doing so far.’
According to Tunstall, the UPC means corporates and their in-house teams to be aware of the relative pros and cons of individual jurisdictions. ‘Clients see the UPC as a jurisdiction – a very important jurisdiction, yes, but another layer on the onion,’ she says. What clients want to know, she continues, is ‘how do you blend these different fora to achieve your strategic goal? How will clients use the UPC strategically to influence? A strategic use of fora, especially in the high-value actions that are going to come through regarding biologics, is going to be key.’
‘The UK still benefits from being a relatively fast jurisdiction, an influencer jurisdiction. It’s a super interesting time.’ Clare Tunstall, Pinsent Masons
Despite Brexit and the UK’s withdrawal, from the UPC partners argue that the UK is in a strong position. ‘The UK still benefits from being a relatively fast jurisdiction, an influencer jurisdiction. It’s a super interesting time,’ says Tunstall. ‘From a life sciences point of view, the UK is still one of the most valuable markets in Europe,’ agrees Sharp. Bennett echoes this, noting that ‘the UK has been a key market for litigation (…) because clients can have certainty sooner than elsewhere in Europe. It’s a speedier market.’
Overall, partners maintain that this is a time of opportunity for UK corporates. ‘Looking forward to the UK as an IP regime, we’re confident that it will still have a presence. We have 60-odd million people – that’s 60-odd million patient consumers,’ says Shorthose. ‘You’d be a brave innovator to ignore the UK as a place to patent your product.’
The combination of emerging technologies, including AI, CRISPR, and biosimilars, and the opportunities and insecurities brought by the UPC means that the current world of IP and patent litigation in the life sciences space is one of opportunity for lawyers too. As Sharp concludes: ‘it’s a moment to potentially influence jurisprudence across major markets that will define the space for many years to come.’
