Patent litigation

<p><em>“The ‘incredible’ Dominic Adair is a clear leader in patent litigation, with peers admiring his wealth of knowledge, particularly when it comes to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors.” </em>(Who’s Who Legal 2023)</p> <p>In the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sector, Dominic has worked on all aspects of the drug life cycle, from freedom to operate analyses and early-stage risk assessment of generic competition to complex end-stage litigation, SPCs and anti-trust issues. A technical background in the life sciences makes Dominic comfortable handling the most complex disputes in this area. His cases have required him to spend years on the scientific concepts underlying some of the most valuable patents in the world, including deprotection reactions in the synthesis of acyl compounds and the regulation of immune checkpoint inhibitors. But his experience of technology is truly varied, including computer hardware, electronic control systems, petrochemical and mechanical engineering and consumer products, including triple-blade razors, bag-in-bottle beer kegs and reduced-harm cigarette filters.</p> <p>Dominic has handled cases across the range of tribunals in the UK and the EPO and has coordinated litigation across Europe and the world. This coordination work, for both rights holders and defendants, has been a mainstay of Dominic’s practice for 20 years, enabling to develop the broadest possible outlook on strategy and a comprehensive tactical playbook. A natural team player, he has assisted clients in bringing patent cases all across the world, from the constitutional courts of Mexico to the Supreme Court of India.</p> <p>Representative UK cases include:</p> <ul> <li>Celltrion v Biogen, Roche & Genentech – revocation action in the Patents Court in relation to biosimilar rituximab product.</li> <li>Gillette v Wilkinson Sword – defence of infringement claim in the Patents Court and counterclaim for revocation of Gillette patent relating to connectors for triple-blade razor cartridges.</li> <li>Heineken v Anheuser-Busch Inbev – revocation claim in the Patents Court against ABI patents relating to bag-in-bottle dispensing technology and defence of infringement counterclaim.</li> <li>Innovia v Frito-Lay – entitlement dispute and breach of confidence action in the Patents Court including jurisdiction challenge involving the Eastern District of Texas.</li> <li>Merck Serono v AbbVie – revocation action in the Patents Court in relation to biosimilar adalimumab product.</li> <li>Novartis v Actavis – preliminary injunction proceedings and infringement claim in the Patents Court concerning the scope of the SPC for valsartan (Diovan®) in relation to combination products.</li> <li>Scientific Drilling v Gyrodata – revocation claim in the Patents Court against Gyrodata patents for methods of measuring tortuosity in oil well boreholes.</li> <li>Secretary of State for Health v Servier – defence of £200m damages claim brought by the UK Government for alleged breaches of competition law, including alleged abuse of dominant position by maintaining a patent for perindopril (Coversyl®) that was later held invalid.</li> <li>Tehrani v Hamilton – defence of infringement claim in the IPEC and counterclaim for revocation of Tehrani patent relating to electronic control systems for hospital ventilators.</li> <li>Truck-Align v Deans Systems – defence of infringement claim in the Patents Court and counterclaim for revocation of Truck-Align patent relating to manually-operated ramp assemblies.</li> <li>Whitaker Corp v FCI – defence of infringement claim in the Patents Court and counterclaim for revocation of Whitaker patent relating to impedance-matched backplane connectors for printed circuit boards.</li> </ul> <p>Representative coordination projects include:</p> <ul> <li>Assisting a large Swiss pharma company coordinate litigation on the patents involved in several projects, including: <ul> <li>Its top-selling hypertension drug across 128 countries</li> <li>Its combination therapy hypertension product across 77 countries</li> <li>Its top-3 product for the treatment of blood diseases across 32 countries</li> </ul> </li> <li>Assisting a medium-sized Swiss pharma company coordinate litigation on the patents surrounding its top-selling anaemia treatment, a non-biological complex drug, across Europe.</li> <li>Assisting a large Korean biosimilar maker coordinate defensive litigation during the launch of two antibody products across Europe.</li> </ul> <p>Dominic writes regularly on reported patent cases in the UK, EPO and UPC and is editor of Bristows’ annual review of patent cases. For several years he co-chaired C5’s Pharma and Biotech Patent Litigation Conference in Amsterdam and remains a regular conference attendee and presenter.</p> <p>Dominic is a member of CIPA, EPLAW and AIPPI and holds office as the Honorary Secretary and Vice-President of AIPPI UK. He also sits on the Membership Committee of AIPPI at the international level.</p>

<p>Greg’s extensive scientific background gives him a valuable understanding of technical issues that can underlie IP matters, particularly in the life sciences field. For almost 20 years, he has advised and represented clients on small molecule pharmaceuticals, biologics (originators and biosimilars), biomanufacturing, medical devices (hardware and software), as well as in the chemicals, cosmetics, food, shipping and online publishing sectors.</p> <p>Greg has represented clients in many patent cases before both the English High Court (including Patents Court) and Court of Appeal. In addition, Greg has extensive experience of strategic multinational litigation in multiple jurisdictions, including at the EPO, through global pharmaceutical product coordination projects for many clients. He is also an Authorised Representative handling cases before the UPC.</p> <ul> <li>In the UPC, Greg was part of team of internationally recognised lawyers that represented <strong>Novartis</strong> in the defence of a DNI action instigated in the Central Division (Milan) by Accord in relation to patents to Tasigna® (nilotinib).</li> <li><strong>Winnow</strong> v Orbisk – representing patentee Winnow in UPC proceedings before the Local Division (The Hague) concerning commercial food waste management solutions.</li> <li>DSM v <strong>Mara Renewables & Algal Omega 3</strong> – Patents Court litigation concerning omega-3 microbial oils, and processes for their manufacture. Mara successfully revoked 2 of the 3 patents in suit, clearing the way to continue manufacture and sale of its products.</li> <li><strong>Novartis</strong> v Teva & Ors – Patents Court and Court of Appeal litigation concerning dosage regime patent for client’s blockbuster fingolimod product (Gilenya®), including ground-breaking application for interim injunctive relief pre-patent grant and significant decisions on the availability of Arrow declarations for use in foreign proceedings.</li> <li>Otsuka v <strong>GW Pharma</strong> – IP licence dispute relating to client’s Epidiolex®/Epidyolex® cannabidiol (CBD) treatment for epilepsy.</li> <li>Lilly v <strong>Novartis;</strong> UCB v <strong>Novartis</strong> – acting for Novartis in relation to global enforcement of IL-17AF antibody patent portfolio against IL-17 antibody products Taltz® and Bimzelx®.</li> <li>Parainen Pearl Shipping v <strong>Kristian Gerhard Jebsen Skipsrederi</strong> – case on exhaustion of patent rights in a pneumatic cement discharge system for a ship, including a pan-European jurisdiction challenge.</li> <li><strong>Novartis</strong> v Focus, Actavis & Teva – Patents Court and Court of Appeal patent litigation concerning transdermal dosage regime patent for rivastigmine (Exelon®), including global coordination of parallel litigation and EPO opposition.</li> <li>Orion v SS for Health and Social Care & <strong>Ever Neuro</strong> – judicial review challenge to decision of MHRA to grant generic marketing authorisation for dexmedetomidine hydrochloride, involving question of whether pre-accession Czech MA was compatible with Directive 2001/83/EC and thus the first MA for the purposes of calculating the term of data exclusivity.</li> <li><strong>Celltrion</strong> v Biogen, Roche & Genentech – clearing the way revocation action in the Patents Court in relation to biosimilar rituximab product (MabThera®).</li> <li><strong>Merck Serono</strong> v AbbVie – clearing the way revocation action in the Patents Court in relation to biosimilar adalimumab product (Humira®).</li> <li>ConvaTec v <strong>Smith & Nephew</strong> – long-running case in the Patents Court and Court of Appeal concerning patents and claims to misuse of confidential information in relation to gel-forming wound dressings (Durafiber®), and subsequent damages claim under a cross-undertaking.</li> <li>Allergan v <strong>Ipsen</strong> – patent litigation in the Patents Court on second medical use patents to botulinum toxin (Dysport®).</li> <li><strong>Servier</strong> v National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) – successful judicial review of NICE decision not to recommend a client’s osteoporosis treatment (Protelos®).</li> </ul> <p>He has also spent time on secondment to the IP litigation department of a leading IP law firm in the Netherlands as well as the UK legal department of a global healthcare IT company, working on non-contentious IP/IT, regulatory and commercial matters.</p> <p>Greg is a member of AIPPI (Association for Protection of Intellectual Property) and EPLAW (European Patent Lawyers Association), and is a regular speaker at international conferences on UK and international patent litigation, including the UPC.</p>

<p>James specialises in patent litigation. He is “technically very insightful” (Chambers 2024) and leaves “a very positive impact” on clients (JUVE 2024).</p> <p>James’ doctorate in optoelectronics and general background in physics provides him with a firm understanding of highly technical issues. He is experienced in working with a diverse range of technical subject matter from mobile telecommunications, human computer interaction, and data storage to immunoassay techniques and pharmaceuticals. He has been at the cutting edge of standard essential patent and FRAND disputes for more than 20 years. His work in this field has spanned four generations of telecommunications technology: 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G, and has led to successful outcomes for both SEP holders and implementers.</p> <p>James was closely involved with preparations for the UPC and led a team in our well publicised UPC Moot designed to stress test the UPC procedures in a real-time framework. He has recently been involved in co-ordinating proceedings across the US, UK, Germany and the UPC.</p> <p>The cases below illustrate James’ impressive track record in achieving positive outcomes for his clients by commercial settlement or judgment of the court.</p> <ul> <li>Texas Instruments v Network System Technologies – acting for Texas Instruments in the revocation of patents relating to network-on-a-chip technology. Co-ordinating with proceedings brought by NST in the UPC on the same patent families.</li> <li>Philips v ASUS and HTC, Philips v TCL, Philips v Xiaomi, and Philips v Oppo – acting for Philips in a series of separate patent infringement claims on standard essential telecommunications technology (3G, 4G and 5G) and FRAND related issues. Successfully defending a preliminary pass-through licence issue; upholding two standard essential telecommunications patents as valid and infringed; defending jurisdiction challenges, and obtaining anti-anti suit relief. Cross-examining the other side’s expert witness in Philips v Xiaomi. Co-ordinating with proceedings in Germany, the Netherlands, France and India. In each case, proceedings settled shortly before the FRAND determination.</li> <li>Unwired Planet v Huawei, Samsung and Google – acting for Samsung and Google on patent infringement claims for standard essential, and non-essential, telecommunications patents and FRAND issues. Both Samsung and Google settled prior to the FRAND determination.</li> <li>IPCom v HTC – acting for IPCom on standard essential patent infringement claims and FRAND issues. Successfully upholding a standard essential patent on random access as valid and infringed.</li> <li>EMGS v PGS – defending a patent infringement claim relating to electromagnetic survey techniques for oil and gas. Acting as co-counsel in parallel Norwegian proceedings, cross examining technical witnesses in the Oslo City Court and successfully invalidating the patent. The dispute settled following the trial in the English Patents Court, but prior to judgment.</li> <li>Philips v Nintendo – acting for Philips in its successful claim for patent infringement on human computer interaction and computer vision technology relating to the Wii remote.</li> <li>Philips v Garmin – acting for Philips on wearable fitness tracking technology. Defending a revocation claim on the amended form of the patent and successfully bringing an infringement counterclaim.</li> <li>Pratt & Whitney v Rolls Royce – acting for Pratt & Whitney in patent infringement proceedings on swept fan blade technology. The dispute settled prior to trial in the Patents Court.</li> <li>Aerotel v Telco – acting for Aerotel in relation to a patent infringement claim relating to a telecommunication system. Successful on appeal: reversing a first instance summary judgment decision on the grounds of lack of patentability, establishing the Aerotel test used for patentability of computer related inventions.</li> <li>Affymetrix v Multilyte – acting for Affymetrix in the successful revocation of immunoassay patents held by Multilyte.</li> </ul> <p>James has taken on the role of advocate in the English Patents Court and in the Norwegian Oslo City Court. In addition to patent and FRAND issues, his work on standard essential patents has involved contractual disputes, issues of foreign law, jurisdiction challenges and anti-suit relief. He has successfully defended multiple jurisdiction challenges and obtained pre-emptive anti-anti suit relief on an ex parte basis. He is experienced in coordinating parallel litigation in Europe, North America and Asia.</p> <p>James is a qualified Solicitor-Advocate with full rights of audience before all of the UK’s civil courts. He is a member of AIPPI and CIPA. James is part of the Mindful Business Charter taskforce that drafted the MBC guidance on the conduct of litigation and dispute resolution.</p>

<p><em>“Andrew Bowler is great to work with. He is very smart and combines a comprehensive understanding of the case detail with an impressive strategic awareness. His judgement and advice on matters of strategy are invariably spot on.” (</em>Legal 500 2025<em>)</em></p> <p>Andy is joint head of the patent litigation department.</p> <p>Andy has considerable experience of representing high profile clients in patent disputes across a wide range of technologies, including complex mechanical and FMCG products, pharmaceuticals, mobile phones (including FRAND), automotives, electronics and medical devices. He has conducted several successful mediations of patent disputes and regularly provides freedom to operate and validity opinions. He is frequently asked by clients to coordinate cross-border litigation around the World.</p> <p>Andy has acted in many leading cases over recent years, including:</p> <ul> <li>Conversant v ZTE in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (acting for ZTE).</li> <li>Teva v Bayer in the High Court and Court of Appeal (acting for Teva).</li> <li>Siemens Gamesa v GE; GE v Siemens Gamesa in the High Court (acting for Siemens Gamesa).</li> <li>Unwired Planet v Samsung in the High Court (acting for Samsung).</li> <li>Heineken v Anheuser–Busch (acting for Heineken).</li> <li>Wobben v Siemens Wind Power in the High Court and Court of Appeal (acting for Siemens).</li> <li>Sandvik v Kennametal in the High Court (acting for Kennametal).</li> <li>Jushi v OCV in the Court of Appeal (acting for Jushi).</li> <li>Alcon Pharmaceuticals v Pharmathen in the High Court (acting for Alcon).</li> <li>Allergan v Ipsen (acting for Ipsen).</li> <li>BAE v Thales (acting for Thales).</li> <li>Siemens v Seagate in the Belfast High Court (acting for Siemens).</li> </ul> <p>Andy has experience of making discovery applications to UK courts pursuant to letters of request/letters rogatory issued by foreign courts. He also has an interest in cases involving misappropriation of trade secrets, and in arbitrations.</p> <p>Andy is frequently asked to comment and lecture on IP issues and is a regular speaker at international conferences on strategic considerations for European and international patent litigation. He regularly provides comments to the national press on intellectual property issues. He is on the Lexis Nexis IP & IT Editorial Board.</p>

<p>Rob is joint head of the patent litigation department. He has a PhD in molecular genetics, over 20 years of litigation experience, and is particularly active on litigation matters for clients within the life sciences sector.</p> <p>Such matters often require the coordination of parallel proceedings in the UK, EPO and other jurisdictions within Europe (including at the UPC) and elsewhere in the world. He therefore has in-depth knowledge of European litigation and, alongside appearing for clients in the High Court and Court of Appeal, has attended preliminary injunction and main action proceedings in multiple countries within Europe and overseen inspections of pharmaceutical manufacturing processes in India and Japan. Rob also has first-hand experience of SPC proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union.</p> <p>Rob’s leading cases include:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Teva v Bayer</strong> – Revocation proceedings in the UK, and coordination of parallel proceedings across Europe, in respect of patents for a cancer treatment.</li> <li><strong>Teva</strong> <strong>v Janssen</strong> – Defence of SPC revocation proceedings in the UK in respect of Arts 3(c) and 3(d) SPC Regulation and a treatment for schizophrenia.</li> <li><strong>Regeneron & Teva v Rinat </strong>– Revocation proceedings in the UK (and the EPO) in respect of patents for antibodies for the treatment of osteoarthritis.</li> <li><strong>GSK v Vectura</strong> – Defence of patent revocation proceedings and Arrow declaratory relief in respect of drug particles for inhalation formulations.</li> <li><strong>Sandoz v Searle (Janssen) </strong>– Defence of SPC revocation proceedings in respect of Art 3(a) SPC Regulation and a treatment for HIV. Includes a reference from the Court of Appeal to the CJEU.</li> <li><strong>Merck Sharp & Dohme v Shionogi – </strong>Defence of patent revocation proceedings in respect of Markush claims and a treatment for HIV.</li> <li><strong>Generics (UK) v Novartis</strong> – Defence of patent and SPC revocation proceedings in the UK, and coordination of parallel proceedings across Europe, in respect of a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.</li> <li><strong>Actavis v Novartis </strong>– Defence of patent revocation proceedings in the UK, and coordination of parallel proceedings across Europe, in respect of a formulation patent for a cholesterol-reducing agent.</li> <li><strong>AstraZeneca v Krka </strong>– Damages enquiry following preliminary injunction and patent infringement proceedings.</li> <li><strong>Lundbeck v Lagap </strong>– Defence of patent infringement proceedings. Included inspection of pharmaceutical production process in India.</li> </ul> <p>Alongside his patent litigation practice, Rob also advises on other IP rights and is one of a small number of lawyers who have acted in matters concerning plant variety rights – such experience extends to enforcement, contractual disputes and compulsory licensing. In addition, Rob regularly assists clients with freedom to operate opinions and due diligence on the intellectual property aspects of commercial transactions.</p> <p>Rob is one of the founding editors of Bristows’ Biotech Review publication.</p> <p>Rob is a member of EPLAW, CIPA and a regular participant at the IPLA.</p>

<p>Adrian specialises in advising clients on all issues relating to the enforcement and validity of patents and supplementary protection certificates, including topical issues such as medical use claims, plausibility, antibody functional claims, Article 3 of the SPC Regulation, and the doctrine of equivalents. Adrian also acts for clients in contractual disputes involving patent rights, both before the High Court and in private international arbitrations.</p> <p>In addition to his expertise in English proceedings, Adrian frequently assists clients with the coordination of litigation in other jurisdictions, working with law firms in Europe, Korea, India, China and the Middle East. In particular Adrian advises a top five pharmaceutical company in the enforcement of its worldwide patent portfolio for two of its blockbuster drugs.</p> <p>Adrian’s recent experience includes:</p> <ul> <li>Actavis v Eli Lilly (atomoxetine, Patents Court)</li> <li>Warner Lambert v NHS England (pregabalin, Patents Court)</li> <li>Teva v Eli Lilly (galcanezumab, Patents Court)</li> <li>Alcon v Aspire & Accord (travoprost, Patents Court, Court of Appeal)</li> <li>Sandoz v BMS (apixaban, Patents Court, Court of Appeal)</li> <li>Celltrion v Novartis & Genentech (omalizumab, Patents Court)</li> </ul>

<p>“Liz Cohen is excellent. She is incredibly commercially astute, very good at anticipating the opposing party’s plans and coming up with strategies”</p> <p>Liz’s background in natural sciences provides her with an excellent understanding of the technical and commercial issues facing those operating in the life sciences industry. With over 25 years’ experience, and known for her commercial savvy and technical polish, she is a sought after adviser for pharmaceutical, biotech and medical devices companies alike.</p> <p>Liz has represented companies in the life sciences industry in patent matters in the English Courts all the way up to the Supreme Court. With her extensive experience of coordinating cross-border litigation within Europe, and her knowledge of jurisdictional strategy and procedure, Liz is also a key member of our team of English and European qualified IP specialists regularly advising clients on their approach to, and participation in, the Unified Patent Court.</p> <p>She has developed her high profile and expertise by working for leading companies in the sector including:</p> <ul> <li>Representing Les Laboratoires Servier in patent infringement and revocation proceedings where she used her Higher Rights advocacy qualification to secure an interim injunction at short notice in relation to Servier’s ACE inhibitor Perindopril market. She took this matter all the way to the Supreme Court and a subsequent damages enquiry in the UK.</li> <li>Representing Smith & Nephew Plc in patent infringement and revocation proceedings in relation to technology in its antimicrobial wound management devices resulting in several appeals including to the Supreme Court, a case recognised for its significance by The Lawyer Awards winning Liz and her team TMT team of the year.</li> <li>Representing Fresenius Kabi in patent litigation proceedings in relation to its patents for biosimilars of Adalimumab.</li> <li>Representing Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA in patent infringement and revocation proceedings in relation to its market leading inhaler formulation Fostair against several generics.</li> </ul> <p>Liz is qualified as a solicitor advocate, a qualification that gives her full rights of audience in civil court cases enabling her to represent her clients in court without the need to instruct a barrister.</p> <p>Liz is a member of CIPA, EPLAW and EPLIT. She is also an established Tutor and Examiner on the Post Graduate Diploma in Intellectual Property Law & Practice at Oxford University (invitation only).</p>

<p><span data-teams="true"><span class="ui-provider a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z ab ac ae af ag ah ai aj ak" dir="ltr"><i>“Brian is the best: he’s really experienced and knows the life sciences patent litigation sector inside-out.” </i>(Chambers UK 2025)</span></span></p> <p>Since qualifying at Bristows in 1996, Brian’s focus has been on intellectual property dispute resolution. From the start of his career, Brian has been instructed by some of the world’s leading healthcare companies to defend and enforce the patents for their most successful products. With almost three decades of dedication to this area, there is hardly an argument or issue that Brian has not encountered. Since 2005, Brian has continuously handled the world-wide co-ordination of projects to manage the defence of patents and related rights for some of the world’s best-selling medicines ensuring that there is correctness, clarity and consistency in all countries. Brian knows that to succeed in such projects a multi-disciplinary team is required and that it is important to think globally but act locally. Brian’s work has involved numerous disease areas including immunology, oncology, endocrinology, neuroscience, dermatology and cardiology.</p> <p>Some of Brian’s work highlights include:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Valsartan</strong> – Acting for Novartis in relation to its patents and SPCs for Diovan®/Co-Diovan®, a very successful anti-hypertension medicine. This was a seven year project assisting Novartis with the defence and enforcement of its patents and SPCs/PTEs in over 40 countries. As part of the UK litigation, a reference to the CJEU was made on the scope of SPCs which led to the ruling on C-442/11 which still stands as good law today.</li> <li><strong>Imatinib</strong> – Acting for Novartis in relation to its patents and SPCs for Glivec® which revolutionised the treatment of certain types of cancer. Over the course of eight years, Brian led the team at Bristows assisting Novartis with the co-ordination of the defence and enforcement of IP rights in over 30 countries with a particular focus on challenges to the paediatric extension to the SPC for imatinib in Europe. The validity and infringement of Novartis’ second medical use patents for use of imatinib to treat GIST was also an important part of this project.</li> <li><strong>Deferasirox</strong> – Acting for Novartis in the defence of its patents and SPCs for Exjade®.  This involved UK litigation on challenges to the validity of (i) the paediatric extension granted to Novartis for deferasirox and (ii) a patent to a film-coated tablet for deferasirox as well as co-ordination across Europe including a successful application to the Dutch Court for a pan-European injunction.</li> <li><strong>Fremanezumab</strong> – Acting for Teva in the defence of a challenge in the English Court to its patents for Ajovy® – a CGRP antibody used to treat migraine and cluster headache.</li> <li><strong>Fasinumab</strong> – Acting for Teva and Regeneron in the English Patents Court in relation to anti-NGF antibodies being trialled for the treatment of osteoarthritis.</li> <li><strong>Fingolimod</strong> – Acting for Novartis in relation to its patents for Gilenya® used to treat multiple sclerosis. This included seeking a preliminary injunction from the English Patents Court on a patent application and co-ordination of litigation across Europe.</li> <li><strong>Dimethyl fumarate</strong> – Acting for Forward Pharma in litigation and EPO oppositions relating to DMF, the active ingredient in Tecfidera® used to treat multiple sclerosis. Forward concluded a settlement with Biogen in January 2017 which included a one-off payment of $1.25bn to Forward.</li> <li><strong>Travoprost </strong>– Acting for Alcon in the defence of a challenge in the English Patents Court and Court of Appeal to its patents for Travatan® used to treat glaucoma.</li> <li><strong>Doggybone DNA</strong> – Acting for Touchlight in the successful defence of an entitlement challenge in the English Patents Court to its patents relating to the in vitro synthesis of DNA.</li> <li>In the<strong> UPC –</strong> Brian was part of a team of internationally recognised lawyers which represented Novartis in the defence of a DNI action instigated in the Central Division (Milan) by Accord in relation to patents for Tasigna® (nilotinib).</li> </ul> <p>Brian was named Who’s Who Legal Patent Lawyer of the Year in 2018, 2019 and 2022. Brian is the co–author of an annual review of UK patent cases which is published annually in the CIPA Journal. He also teaches patent law on the Oxford University Diploma on Intellectual Property Law and Practice and is a member of the Exam Board of this Diploma. He is the co-editor of the Kluwer Patent Blog.</p>

<p><em>“Charlie French is excellent to work with, intelligent and responsive, manages the team effectively with ease.” </em>(Legal 500 2025)</p> <p>Charlie specialises in patent litigation and has a particular interest in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, stemming from her background in biochemistry and molecular biology. She has represented clients in complex patent litigation before the Patents Court (High Court) and Court of Appeal and arbitration arising from licensing disputes. She also works closely with lawyers, patent attorneys and regulatory advisors in multiple jurisdictions to coordinate multinational patent litigation strategies for clients. She has an excellent understanding of the different legal and regulatory systems within Europe and further afield and provides strategic advice that takes into account the broader global landscape.</p> <p>Within the life sciences sector, Charlie has advised on disputes relating to small molecule pharmaceuticals, antibodies and antibody engineering technology, gene cloning and cell-based expression systems, drug delivery systems, formulations and dosage regimens. Charlie has also acted for clients in the fields of consumer goods, shipping, software and agriculture.</p> <p>Some of Charlie’s work highlights include:</p> <ul> <li><em>Sandoz & Polpharma v Biogen</em> – patent revocation and infringement proceedings in the Patents Court relating to anti-JCV antibody testing patents prior to launch of Tyruko®, Sandoz’s biosimilar to Biogen’s Tysabri® product for the treatment of multiple sclerosis.</li> <li><em>Lilly v Novartis</em>; <em>UCB v Novartis</em> – European patent revocation and infringement proceedings relating to IL-17AF antibody patents.</li> <li>Advising the licensee in a contractual dispute under an arbitration clause in a licence to a cell expression system used in the manufacture of an antibody-drug conjugate for cancer therapy.</li> <li><em>Parainen Pearl Shipping & Ors v Kristian Gerhard Jebsen Skipsrederi</em> – Patents Court case on exhaustion of patent rights, application of the <em>Schutz v Werit</em> test of manufacture/repair, implied licence and estoppel.</li> <li><em>Accord v Medac </em>– invalidity proceedings in the Patents Court relating to a patent claiming a concentrated methotrexate formulation.</li> <li><em>Novartis v Focus, Actavis & Teva</em> – litigation in the Patents Court and Court of Appeal concerning a transdermal dosage regimen patent for rivastigmine (Exelon®) and global coordination of parallel litigation and EPO opposition.</li> <li>Coordinating multinational patent litigation strategies for a number of blockbuster pharmaceutical products in Europe, Asia, North America, South America, Australia and Africa, with experience ranging from obtaining a record number of preliminary injunctions against infringing generic products in India to multiple parallel section 1782 discovery proceedings in the US.</li> </ul> <p>Charlie regularly publishes and speaks on UPC topics and co-hosts a UPC podcast (‘You, me and the UPC’). She is a previous winner of the Young EPLAW UPC Mock Trial, competing against patent litigators across Europe.</p> <p>She is also one of the authors of Bristows’ annual Patent Review of the Year, UPC Review and Biotech Review publications, is actively involved in Bristows’ Diversity & Inclusion group and co-heads Bristows’ Families & Carers Network.</p> <p>Charlie is a member of CIPA Life Sciences Committee and the IP Federation.</p>

<p>Naomi specialises in patent litigation. Whilst she advises on a wide range of issues and subject matters, Naomi’s technical background in physics puts her in particular demand for cases in the technology, telecommunications and engineering sectors, where her detailed understanding of complex technology puts her in a strong position.</p> <p>Naomi’s extensive expertise covers a broad spectrum of technical subject matter and she has also addressed cutting-edge legal issues. Her substantial expertise in SEP cases has provided her with valuable experience in advising on FRAND issues from both the SEP holder and implementer perspective.</p> <p>Her practice involves an international dimension, with most of her cases requiring coordination across jurisdictions, most commonly in the EU, including the UPC, and the US.</p> <p>Naomi became a partner in 2024 and has been described as a “leading light of the future” (Legal 500 2023). Naomi’s leadership and expertise contribute significantly to achieving positive outcomes for her clients.</p> <p>Naomi’s significant work highlights include:</p> <ul> <li>Part of the team assisting Panasonic in its SEP/FRAND dispute against Xiaomi and Oppo. Naomi played a key role in the team working with Panasonic on its defence against Xiaomi’s novel claim for declarations relating to interim licence regimes and the good faith performance of the FRAND commitment.</li> <li>Acting for Siemens Gamesa in its patent dispute against GE concerning wind turbine technology.</li> <li>Naomi has been a long standing adviser to IPCom on its SEP/FRAND disputes against Nokia, HTC, Lenovo, Xiaomi and Vodafone. Most recently this included IPCom’s case against Vodafone in the Court of Appeal that concluded in a favourable judgment relating to Crown use as well as the subsequent application by Vodafone to recover its costs following a decision by the TBA to revoke the patent.</li> <li>Advising Samsung and Google in the Unwired Planet dispute.</li> <li>Acting for PGS in its dispute against EMGS.</li> </ul> <p>Naomi has advised on numerous SEP disputes, spanning a wide range of standardised technologies from the 2G, 3G and 4G systems as well as implementation patents covering aspects of the various operating systems. As a result, Naomi has a wealth of experience dealing with issues that arise specifically in SEP litigation and FRAND disputes, as well as the complex jurisdictional aspects of these cases. Most recently, Naomi has been part of the team working with Panasonic in its dispute with Xiaomi and Oppo. Naomi previously assisted Samsung in its disputes against Apple and Unwired Planet, as well as Google in the Unwired Planet litigation and IPCom in its cases against Nokia, HTC and Vodafone. This has allowed Naomi to approach these cases from the perspective of the implementer but also from the patentee side.</p> <p>Outside of the field of telecommunications, Naomi has in-depth experience in cases involving engineering technology including wind energy technology, hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation and LED technology. Naomi advised Siemens Gamesa in its dispute with GE concerning several aspects of wind turbine technology. She also assisted Petroleum Geo-Services in its dispute against Electromagnetic Geoservices involving hydrocarbon surveying techniques as well as Philips Lighting/Signify in a dispute with Megaman relating to various patents in its LED licensing portfolio.</p> <p>Naomi is a co-author of Bristows’ Patent Review of the Year publication, which is also published in CIPA Journal. She is a contributor to the You, me and UPC and FRANDLY Chat podcasts. Naomi is a member of AIPPI and CIPA. She is a former committee member of IPSoc and she regularly attends conferences, such as IPBC.</p>

<p>“<em>Myles is a go-to for particularly difficult disputes. He thinks outside of the box to deliver a best-in-class service when dealing with technically and legally complex matters.</em>” IAM Patent 1000 2024</p> <p>“<em>Myles is very experienced and absolutely exceptional.</em>” Chambers and Partners 2024</p> <p>Myles practice has focused in recent years upon high-tech disputes for multinational companies and his clients include Samsung, Google, Panasonic and Collins Aerospace.</p> <p>Myles is also part of Bristows’ competition department with experience of handling competition disputes before the UK courts and the European Commission. His work within this department has given him considerable experience in the interface between IPRs and anti-trust issues, particularly in the telecoms sector where he has acted in a number of leading UK cases including <em>Samsung v Apple</em>, <em>IPCom v Nokia/HTC</em>, <em>Unwired Planet v Samsung, Conversant v ZTE </em>and <em>Panasonic v Xiaomi</em>. This experience has meant Myles is at the front of the developing legal area of FRAND dispute resolution.</p> <p>Myles’ post-doctoral level engineering training particularly suits him to the more technically demanding cases within his patent practice. Recent cases within this practice have focused on the computing and telecoms sectors. Myles also, however, acts for clients in the aerospace and robotic technology sectors.</p> <p>Myles also works closely with Bristows’ Commercial Disputes team in relation to commercial disputes relating to the operation of complex technologies.</p> <p>Myles is a qualified Solicitor-Advocate with rights of audience before all the UK’s civil courts and is a qualified Irish Solicitor with full rights to practice before the Irish courts.</p> <p>Myles is also a registered representative with rights to practice before the European Unified Patent Court and is presently running a patent dispute before the Hague local division of the UPC.</p> <p>Some of Myles’ work highlights include:</p> <ul> <li><em>Winnow Solutions v Orbisk </em>– patent infringement before Hague local division of UPC relating to food waste management technologies.</li> <li><em>Panasonic v Xiaomi and Oppo </em>– patent infringement and FRAND rate determination in relation to 4G cellular technology.</li> <li><em>Orderly Mind Ltd v Queue-it SA </em>– patent infringement relating to online queuing systems.</li> <li><em>Unwired Planet v Samsung & Google</em> – patent infringement and FRAND defences in relation to 3G and 4G cellular technology.</li> <li><em>Conversant v ZTE</em> – patent infringement and FRAND defences in relation to 3G and 4G cellular technology.</li> <li><em>IPCom v RIM / Nokia / HTC / Xiaomi / Vodafone</em> – a number of disputes before the UK Courts concerning patent infringement and FRAND defences in relation to 3G and 4G cellular technology.</li> <li><em>Samsung v Ericsson </em>– patent infringement and FRAND disputes concerning 3G and 4G cellular technologies.</li> <li><em>Goldschmidt v EOC</em> – patent infringement concerning surfactant chemical manufacture.</li> <li><em>Texas Instruments v Hyundai</em> – patent dispute concerning computer memory lithographic processes.</li> <li><em style="font-size: 2rem;">Intel v VIA</em><span style="font-size: 2rem;"> – compulsory licensing of essential x86 bus interface patents.</span></li> </ul> <p>His practice is international nature, with the vast majority of cases in the last 25 years including the co-ordination of parallel cases in jurisdictions throughout the EU and the US. He has closely followed the development of the pan-European Unified Patent Court (UPC) throughout its gestation, regularly attending and speaking at the EPO and EPLAW organised Venice Patent Judges Congress.</p> <p>Myles is a member of AIPPI and was President of the European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW), the leading association of European patent lawyers, from 2020-2022.</p>

<p>Over the last 15 years, Rachel has advised clients on global patent litigation matters across a broad range of topics, from pharma, biotech and medical devices cases to glass fibres and beer-dispensing machines. She has a particular interest in the chemical and life sciences sectors due to her background in chemistry.</p> <p>Rachel’s work encompasses working on pre-litigation strategic issues as well as active litigation before the courts in the UK and elsewhere and playing a pivotal role in the coordination of multi-jurisdictional patent litigation. As part of this work she has gained experience in a range of issues such as obtaining interim injunctions, conducting litigation experiments, working with a wide range of technical experts and advising on patent entitlement issues.</p> <p>For much of her career, Rachel has worked with leading pharmaceutical companies, helping them to develop strategies for the defence and enforcement of patents relating to blockbuster medicines and medical devices. Her work therefore involves working closely with lawyers and patent attorneys across the globe to ensure careful technical and legal alignment of litigation and prosecution matters.</p> <p>Rachel’s work highlights include:</p> <ul> <li>Celltrion v Genentech & Novartis – litigation in the High Court relating to XOLAIR (omalizumab) formulation.</li> <li>Teva and Samsung Bioepis v Novartis – litigation in the High Court relating to LUCENTIS (ranibizumab) pre-filled syringes, also multi-jurisdictional coordination.</li> <li>Heineken v Anheuser Busch Inbev v Heineken – litigation in the High Court relating to polymer chemistry of kegs used in beer dispensing machines.</li> <li>OCV v Jushi – Appeal before the Court of Appeal relating to composition of glass fibres (guidance on anticipation relating to numerical ranges).</li> <li>Fisher & Paykel v Resmed – litigation in the High Court relating to CPAP masks.</li> <li>Good Technology Corporation v MobileIron – litigation in the High Court relating to software application.</li> <li>Hospira v Novartis – litigation in the High Court and Court of Appeal relating to a dosage regimen relating to ACLASTA, also multijurisdictional coordination. Includes notable preliminary injunction (PI) decision from the Court of Appeal on the availability of PIs when a patent has been held to be invalid at first instance.</li> <li>Top 5 pharmaceutical company<span style="font-size: 2rem;"> v multiple generics/biosimilar companies (coordination of litigation and pre-litigation strategies relating to additional blockbuster medicines).</span></li> </ul> <p>Rachel spent seven months on secondment to the patent litigation team of a US biopharmaceutical company where she gained a first-hand appreciation of life as “the client” and a valuable insight into how best to provide good client service and useful, commercial advice.</p> <p>Rachel is a co-editor of the Kluwer Patent Blog.</p>

<p>Claire is a contentious IP specialist. She works in a variety of sectors including pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices, chemicals and consumer electronics.</p> <p>Claire is regularly engaged in patent infringement and revocation actions in the UK High Court and Court of Appeal, including preliminary injunction applications. She also has experience in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, has assisted with judicial review on regulatory matters, complex damages actions, applications for interim and summary relief, pre-action and third party disclosure and permission to appeal in a number of courts, including the Supreme Court.</p> <p>Alongside her UK practice, Claire has embraced the global coordination of patent litigation since qualifying in 2011, including developing strategies involving regulatory/competition law aspects.</p> <p>Some of Claire’s work highlights include:</p> <ul> <li>Sandoz, Teva & others v Bayer – acting for Teva in a multi-party dispute concerning the validity of Bayer’s patent protection for the dosing regime of rivaroxaban (Xarelto®) at first instance and in the Court of Appeal; including assisting in multiple preliminary injunction applications at first instance and on appeal.</li> <li>Teva v Grunenthal – acting for Teva in a patent infringement and validity action concerning the formulation patent covering Grunenthal’s testosterone undecanoate product, Nebido®.</li> <li>Teva v Novartis – acting for Novartis in patent litigation concerning a patent protecting deferasirox (Exjade®) in the UK High Court.</li> <li>Regeneron & Teva v Rinat – acting for Teva/Regeneron in patent litigation before the English Patents Court concerning anti-NGF an antibody (fasinumab) being trialled for the treatment of osteoarthritis.</li> <li>Eli Lilly v Teva – acting for Teva in patent litigation relating to patents for an anti-CGRP antibody, fremanezumab (Ajovy®) used to treat migraine and cluster headache.</li> <li>Novartis v Hospira & others – acting for Novartis in patent litigation relating to zoledronic acid (Aclasta®), including in achieving the seminal Court of Appeal decision on preliminary injunctions that confirms that parties must clear the way to the Court of Appeal or risk being injuncted.</li> <li>Orion v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Ever Neuro – acting for Ever Neuro in judicial review proceedings concerning an MHRA decision to grant a generic MA for dexmedetomidine hydrochloride.</li> <li>Smith & Nephew v Convatec – assisting Smith & Nephew in proceedings against Convatex in relation to gel-forming wound dressings (Durafiber®), including a damages claim under a cross-undertaking.</li> <li>Assisting multiple large pharmaceutical companies in global coordination relating to patent rights covering treatments (including small molecules, antibodies, non-biological complex drugs) for a diverse range of disorders, including alignment on regulatory matters and competition aspects.</li> </ul> <p>Claire has a particular interest in the <a href="/expertise/sectors/life-sciences/">life sciences</a> sector. Her biochemical background lends itself to the technical aspects of <a href="/expertise/transactions/commercial-ip-transactions/">intellectual property</a> matters, particularly in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology fields. She regularly works alongside lawyers and patent attorneys in various jurisdictions within Europe, Asia, Australasia and the US to coordinate global litigation strategies.</p> <p>Claire is actively involved in Bristows’ <a href="/about-us/corporate-responsibility/">corporate responsibility</a> efforts and chairs the CR Charities Committee.</p>

<p><i>“Richard is super bright, a strategic thinker and knows everything there is to know about technology.” </i>(Chambers UK 2025)</p> <p>Richard is a litigator focused on patents and the technology sector.</p> <p>Richard has acted in some of the largest and most significant patent disputes before the UK courts. His qualifications as a solicitor advocate allow him to appear before all courts in England and Wales and he is a UPC representative.</p> <p>Richard handles both patent infringement and validity and has extensive experience in enforcement and defence. Richard’s background in engineering gives him a unique edge, enabling him to navigate technical patent litigation in diverse sectors with ease.</p> <p>Richard has extensive experience advising clients on FRAND and SEP matters and he has been at the forefront of the legal developments in this area throughout his career, including on the intersection with competition law.</p> <p>Richard also advises on licensing disputes where patents are a focus, particularly in relation to patent licensing programs.</p> <p>On nearly all of Richard’s cases he coordinates multi-jurisdictional litigation. Richard also has experience advising clients in proceedings before the EPO.</p> <p>Highlights of Richard’s cases include the following:</p> <p>Panasonic v Xiaomi and OPPO – advising Panasonic in proceedings relating to LTE SEPs, FRAND, patent infringement and validity, coordinating multijurisdictional litigation in the UK, Germany, the UPC and China.</p> <p>Philips v OPPO, TCL, HTC and Asus – several cases advising Philips in proceedings relating to FRAND, LTE and HSDPA SEPs, patent infringement and validity, including anti-suit relief.</p> <p>Vestel v Access Advance and Philips – advising Philips in proceedings brought by Vestel for a standalone RAND declaration.</p> <p>IPCom v HTC and Nokia v IPCom – advising IPCom in proceedings relating to SEPs and FRAND, including damages issues and an injunction.</p> <p>Philips Lighting v Megaman – advising Philips Lighting in proceedings against Megaman to enforce patents relating to LED lighting technology as part of Philips Lighting’s LED licensing program.</p> <p>Unwired Planet v Samsung and Google – advising Samsung and Google in patent infringement, validity and FRAND proceedings.</p> <p>Good Technology v AirWatch and MobileIron – advising MobileIron in patent infringement and validity proceedings relating to enterprise mobility management.</p> <p>Philips v Nintendo – advising Philips in patent infringement and validity proceedings relating to human computer interface hardware.</p> <p>Sandvik v Kennametal – advising Kennametal in proceedings relating to machine cutting tools, patent infringement and validity</p> <p>Siemens v Seagate Technology – advising Siemens in patent infringement proceedings relating to magnetic hard disk drives.</p> <p>Richard is a member of AIPPI (Association for Protection of Intellectual Property), EPLAW (European Patent Lawyers Association) and LES (Licensing Executive Society) and is a regular speaker at international conferences on UK patent litigation and FRAND.</p>