His advice covers the full range of intellectual property rights, with a particular emphasis on patents, trade marks, registered designs and trade secrets.
Andy has considerable experience of representing high profile clients in IP disputes across a wide range of technologies, including complex mechanical and FMCG products, mobile phones, automotives, pharmaceuticals, electronics and medical devices. He has conducted several successful mediations of IP disputes and regularly provides freedom to operate and validity opinions.
He has conducted several successful mediations of IP disputes.
Andy has recently assisted a leading consumer products company in successful trade mark proceedings before the CJEU. His recent patent litigation experience has included acting for Kennametalin successfully defending patent infringement proceedings brought in the Patents Court in London by their biggest competitor (Sandvik v Kennametal  EWHC 3311 (Pat)).
He has also successfully represented Siemens and its customers in relation to patent infringement proceedings in the field of wind turbine technology both in the High Court (Wobben Properties GmbH v Siemens PLC & Ors  EWHC 2114 (Pat)) and in the Court of Appeal (Wobben Properties GmbH v Siemens PLC & Ors  EWCA Civ 5) – both tribunals held that the patent in issue was invalid and also not infringed by the Siemens technology. In early 2016, he secured a win for Samsung as part of the defence of patent litigation proceedings brought by Unwired Planet against Samsung and Huawei. In a decision from January 2016 ( EWHC 94 (Pat)), the Court found that both Unwired Planet’s patents that were in issue were invalid and should be revoked.
Andy regularly provides comments to the national press (including most recently The Times and The Guardian) on intellectual property issues. He is on the Lexis Nexis IP & IT Editorial Board.
Some other recent cases include:
- Heineken v Anheuser-Busch
- Conversant v ZTE and Huawei (standard essential telecommunications patents, FRAND and jurisdiction challenge – leading case in the court of appeal on appropriate forum for SEP/FRAND disputes)
- Jushi v OCV (first case in Court of Appeal relating to overlapping ranges)
- Alcon Pharmaceuticals v Pharmathen (PI proceedings relating to travoprost)
- Allergan v Ipsen (Swiss type claims and EPC 2000 claims regarding second medical uses of botulinum toxin)
- BAE v Thales (helmet mounted displays)
- Kenilworth v Blackberry and Microsoft (visual voicemail for mobile phones)
- Siemens v Seagate (Northern Irish proceedings relating to magnetoresistive sensors)
- Yozmot v HTC (polyphonic ring tones)
- Qualified 1999
- Partner 2008
What others say
"Andrew Bowler is well thought of for his work on life sciences as well as hi-tech matters. A source says: "He has a dependable instinct for identifying the important points in a case and an encyclopaedic knowledge of IP law.""Chambers and Partners 2019
“Bowler’s diligence and motivation never fail to impress. He’s an exceptionally bright and thoughtful litigator – one of the most talented and effective out there.” - IAM Patent 1000 2018 Andrew Bowler has "a great reputation and is very easy to work with", according to one interviewee, who goes on to add: "His ability to present cases in a simple and comprehensive way is simply first class.Who's Who Legal 2018
The "extremely bright and incredibly conscientious" Andrew Bowler handles hi-tech and life sciences patent disputes. Clients say: "He is very pragmatic, sensitive to business goals, forward-thinking and manages cases well from start to end."Chambers and Partners 2018
"‘extremely bright’ and ‘absolutely committed’ Andrew Bowler."Legal 500 2017
“'A brilliant solicitor', Bowler’s 'ability to work himself into very complex technical matters is outstanding. He is first rate as a litigator, a delight to work with and absolutely dedicated to his clients’ interests'."IAM Patent 1000 2017
"Andrew Bowler...praised for [his] ‘commercial awareness and technical ability’."Legal 500 2016
“The 'absolutely superb' Andrew Bowler 'is completely committed to cases and his clients’ interests. He is uncommonly clever and has a masterful command of extremely complex technology. From both a professional and personal perspective, it’s always a pleasure to work with him'.”IAM Patent 1000 2016
Intellectual Property - IP: Patent Litigation
Chambers and Partners 2019/2018
Best Lawyers™ in the United Kingdom for Intellectual Property Law
IAM Patent 1000 2018
Who's Who Legal 2018
Managing Intellectual Property, IP Stars 2017
Legal 500 2017