43 Partners, 4 Of Counsel, 99 Associates, 2 PSLs, 20 Trainees, 11 Paralegals (as of February 2020)
Major practice areas
Intellectual Property, Information Technology, Corporate and Financing, Commercial and Technology Disputes, Real Estate, Regulatory, Competition and EU, Media and Marketing, Employment and Tax
In January 2008, the firm relocated from Lincoln's Inn Fields to new city offices on the first two floors of 100 Victoria Embankment, London (also known as Unilever House). In May 2018, the firm opened its first international office in Brussels.
Bristows was founded in 1837 by Robert Wilson at 1, Copthall Buildings in the City of London.[2][3] One of his first pieces of work related to the patenting of the first practical electrical telegraph, then particularly in demand for its application to railways. Wilson also advised a Captain Crauford in relation to his patent "for preserving from rust" and the electronic engineer Sir Charles Wheatstone on the wheatstone bridge circuit.[4]
In 1849, Ebenezer Bristows joined the firm. Ebenezer was a member of the Law Society Council from 1873 until 1908, and president of the Law Society of England and Wales for the year 1883 to 1884.[5] It was during this year that the first UK Patent Act arrived, which laid the basis for modern patent law and practice.
During the 19th century, the firm acted for the Royal Mail Steam Packet, largely on litigation relating to accidents at sea. Other clients in the late 19th century include the Electric Telephone Company, Steam Plough Patents, the Bread Patents Company, the Celluloid Manufacturing Company and the Tigris & Euphrates Steam Navigation Company.[6]
Early 1900s
The firm's name was changed to Bristows, Cooke and Carpmael in 1906, reflecting the names of the then partners.
Henry Cooke was heavily involved in patenting work, and was a member of the committee whose advice led to the Patents Act 1919. Alfred Carpmael, was a prominent patent agent of his time, and the author of the first handbook on 'Patent Laws of the World.[7]
In the 1950s, to avoid a notoriously unpredictable English judge, the firm took the unusual move of bringing a patent case in Scotland, despite the lack of experience of patent litigation there. The move, for a textile machinery manufacturer, was successful,[11] It was closely followed by another similar case on behalf of the Jockey Company of Chicago over its invention, Y-fronts, which were being manufactured under licence in Scotland.
Late 20th century
In the 1960s, Bristows was involved in a patent case on the jet engine, Renee Anxionnaz and Societe Rateau v Rolls-Royce, De Havillands and the Ministry of Aviation, .[12]Sir Frank Whittle the inventor of the jet engine, was the expert for Bristows and the trial lasted about five weeks.
In the 1980s Bristows handled the first ever UK biotechnology case representing Genentech in defending its patent for recombinant tPA (used in treating thrombosis).[13]
The continuing expansion of the firm in the 1970s, and the landlords' decision to redevelop 1 Copthall Buildings, led to a move to Lincoln's Inn Fields.
In 1997 the firm advises on a joint venture between BSkyB, British Telecom, HSBC and Matsushita (now Panasonic) to create Open, the world's first digital interactive television service on Sky.[14]
In 1998, the firm shortened its name from Bristows Cooke & Carpmael to Bristows.
In 2003, the firm acted for Bayer AG on the £25million financing aspects of its exclusive marketing agreement with GW Pharmaceuticals plc relating to the marketing of GW's pioneering cannabis-based medicine Sativex®.[17] In the same year, the firm acted for VIA Technologies in a hard-fought competition law battle between leading chip producer Intel and its smaller competitor, VIA Technologies. In this case, the Court of Appeal decided that VIA Technologies can bring Intel to trial, and alleged that Intel's behaviour is anti-competitive, that the way Intel uses its huge patent portfolio seriously harms smaller rivals, and that Intel is driving rivals out of business and harming consumers.[18]
In 2007, Bristows acted for the members of the 1980s band Frankie Goes to Hollywood who achieved victory in their dispute with former lead singer, Holly Johnson, over the trademark rights to the band's name.[19]
The firm relocated from Lincoln's Inn Fields to new City offices at Unilever House in 2008. Also, in this year, the firm acted in the first modern case addressing the principles involved in calculating the compensation payable under a cross-undertaking where the patentee obtained an interim injunction but subsequently lost at trial[20] The firm also acted for Smith and Nephew in a patent action before the UK Court of Appeal. In an unprecedented move, the trial of the action, which started in December 2008, took only seven months from commencement to Judgment by the Court of Appeal.[21]
Since 2009 Bristows has been advising SAS Institute Inc. on its ongoing litigation with World Programming Limited,[22] a breach of licence and copyright infringement case which raises a number of fundamental issues regarding the scope of protection for computer software in Europe. The English High Court has referred nine questions of law arising from Articles 1(2) and 5(3) of the Software Directive in the case to the European Court of Justice for guidance. The decision of the European Court of Justice (expected mid-2012) is keenly awaited by those in the industry and the legal sector.
In 2009, the firm acted for the defendants in the first UK case where compensation has been awarded to an employee inventor.[23] In 2010, Bristows won TMT team of the year at The Lawyer Awards 2010 for its work on the Smith and Nephew litigation mentioned above, which colloquially became known as "The Rocket Docket" for its speed from commencement to judgment.[24] The firm also won the UK Patent Contentious Award 2010 at the Managing Intellectual Property Global Awards.[25]
2010s
In 2011, the firm was recognised as a 'First Class' company to work for by Best Companies, a research group responsible for compiling the Sunday Times 'Best Companies to Work For' list.[26] In the same year, the firm advised Star Navigation Systems on a marketing/commercialisation agreement with an EADS/Airbus affiliate relating to a new form of "black box" technology for aircraft, which transmits real-time data to ground stations via satellites. Not only does this technology allow aircraft faults and aviation incidents to be investigated more quickly but also provides other benefits, such as improved scheduling for vital repairs and better aircraft route planning and fuel efficiency.[27]
In 2011, the firm also achieved a groundbreaking [according to whom?] win for IPCom in a telecoms patent action before the UK High Court. IPCom was sued by Nokia in April 2010 for revocation of a patent relating to a mechanism for controlling access to the random access channel, a channel used by mobile devices when accessing the mobile telephone network. IPCom countersued for infringement of the patent in June 2010 by each of Nokia's UMTS-enabled devices (UMTS is the mobile telephone standard under which the UK 3G network and UK 3G mobile devices operate). The Court upheld IPCom's patent as valid and infringed (subject to a minor amendment to the exact form of its claims).[28]
Bristows advises L'Oreal in its ongoing trade mark infringement case against eBay. In 2011 L'Oreal won an ECJ trade mark ruling against eBay, which clarified the legal position of e-commerce platforms offering counterfeit items under famous brand names .
Bristows acted pro-bono to advise Complete Pleasure Boats on its winning bid to operate the river boat service between Putney and Blackfriars, starting 3 January 2012 and initially operating for a trial period of 6 months.[29]
Bristows has been representing Samsung in the UK aspects of its patent dispute with Apple relating to smartphone and tablet technologies and involving parallel proceedings in ten jurisdictions.[30]
In 2012 Bristows celebrated its 175 anniversary with a series of events and the production of a timeline looking back on it history.
In 2012 Bristows acted for Cadbury on ambush marketing strategies for the London 2012 Olympics and advised Guardian News and Media on social media product launches.[31]
On 26 June 2012 Bristows was awarded 3rd place in the category of UK Law Firm of the Year at The Lawyer Awards.[32]
In October 2012 the Financial Times named Bristows as one of the 'Most Innovative Law Firms in Client Service. Bristows was commended for its Global command and control system for the defence of patent rights in the pharmaceutical sector."[33]
In November 2013 the UK's Court of Appeal handed down a judgment in the case of IPCom v HTC that is significant for the enforcement of patents in the UK. Bristows acted for the successful claimant, IPCom GmbH & Co KG, and the case concerned whether national courts should proceed with a patent dispute where the validity of the same patent is also being considered at the European Patent Office ("EPO"). The Court of Appeal looked again at the guidelines which courts should use in exercising their discretion in such cases. Lord Justice Floyd concluded that, given the tensions inherent in the European patent system, judges should maintain their ability to exercise a discretion to progress or stay a case depending upon its facts. One factor in favour of a stay would be if the patentee were likely to irrevocably gain some compensation from the defendant which might later be found to have been wrongly bestowed. If the patentee is prepared to give an undertaking to return any such money, however, then allowing the proceedings to progress in parallel could achieve at least some certainty as between the parties in a sensible timescale.[34]
In December 2013 the Patents Court handed down its judgment in Smith & Nephew v ConvTec No. 2.[35] Bristows acted for the successful claimant, Smith & Nephew in the most recent instalment of litigation involving ConvaTec's patent for silverised wound dressings (silver being known for its healing properties).
Between 2015 and 2020 the firm's Competition and Patent Litigation practice was involved in the first few cases related to SEP StandardEssential patent and the FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing) rules in the UK such as IPCom v Nokia, Unwired Planet v Huawei, Conversant v ZTE, Philips v ASUS and HTC . The firm launched a tracker tool for all cases related to the discipline in 2020.
In 2017 the full IP team from Berwin Leighton Paisner joined Bristows, two partners and seven other fee earners, complementing its Brands and trademark portfolio management practice.[36]
Related Research Articles
The inventive step and non-obviousness reflect a general patentability requirement present in most patent laws, according to which an invention should be sufficiently inventive—i.e., non-obvious—in order to be patented. In other words, "[the] nonobviousness principle asks whether the invention is an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art".
Prosecution history estoppel, also known as file-wrapper estoppel, is a term used to indicate that a person who has filed a patent application, and then makes narrowing amendments to the application to accommodate the patent law, may be precluded from invoking the doctrine of equivalents to broaden the scope of their claims to cover subject matter ceded by the amendments. Although primarily a U.S. term, questions of whether, or the extent to which the prosecution history should be relevant for determining the extent of protection of a patent also arise outside the U.S.
European patent law covers a range of legislations including national patent laws, the Strasbourg Convention of 1963, the European Patent Convention of 1973, and a number of European Union directives and regulations. For some states in Eastern Europe, the Eurasian Patent Convention applies.
Menashe Business Mercantile Ltd. & Anor v William Hill Organization Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 1702 was a patent case regarding Internet usage. The case addressed a European patent covering the United Kingdom for an invention referred to as "Interactive, computerized gaming system with remote control". Menashe sued William Hill, claiming that William Hill was infringing the patent by operating an online gaming system. William Hill's defence argued that it did not infringe the patent because the server on which it operated the system was located outside of the UK, in Antigua or Curaçao. Although accepting that their supply of software was in the UK and that this was an essential part of the invention, they further argued that the patent was for the parts of the system, and as one essential part of the system was not located in the UK, there could be no infringement.
There are four overriding requirements for a patent to be granted under United Kingdom patent law. Firstly, there must have been an invention. That invention must be novel, inventive and susceptible of industrial application.
Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application is a judgment by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The judgment was passed down on 27 October 2006 and relates to two different appeals from decisions of the High Court. The first case involved GB 2171877 granted to Aerotel Ltd and their infringement action against Telco Holdings Ltd and others. The second case concerned GB application 2388937 filed by Neal Macrossan but refused by the UK Patent Office.
English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.
Sir Robert Raphael Hayim Jacob, PC, known as Robin Jacob, is a former judge in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.
Shahram Taghavi is a barrister practising in the United Kingdom. He is a specialist in Judicial Review, Human Rights, Immigration and EU law. He was called to the England & Wales bar in 1994. He is a partner at Article 1, a law firm specialising in immigration, EU freedoms of movement and human rights law. He practised as an independent barrister at Doughty Street Chambers specialising in human rights, immigration and public law. He was joint head of the Human Rights and Public law departments and head of the Immigration department at Simons Muirhead & Burton solicitors. He was a Senior Barrister at Bates Wells & Braithwaite LLP as a member of their Public & Regulatory, Human Rights and Immigration departments, Deputy Head of Human Rights and Immigration at Lewis Silkin LLP, Head of Human Rights and Immigration at Charles Russell LLP and National Head of Immigration and Human Rights at Grant Thornton LLP.
Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens[2009] UKHL 39 is a leading case relevant for UK company law and the law on fraud and ex turpi causa non oritur actio. The House of Lords decided by a majority of three to two that where the director and sole shareholder of a closely held private company deceived the auditors with fraud carried out on all creditors, subsequently the creditors of the insolvent company would be barred from suing the auditors for negligence from the shoes of the company. The Lords reasoned that where the company was only identifiable with one person, the fraud of that person would be attributable to the company, and the "company" could not rely on its own illegal fraud when bringing a claim for negligence against any auditors. It was the last case to be argued before the House of Lords.
A Norwich Pharmacal order is a court order for the disclosure of documents or information that is available in the United Kingdom and Ireland. It is granted against a third party which has been innocently mixed up in wrongdoing, forcing the disclosure of documents or information. By identifying individuals the documents and information sought are disclosed in order to assist the applicant for such an order in bringing legal proceedings against individuals who are believed to have wronged the applicant.
An employment contract in English law is a specific kind of contract whereby one person performs work under the direction of another. The two main features of a contract is that work is exchanged for a wage, and that one party stands in a relationship of relative dependence, or inequality of bargaining power. On this basis, statute, and to some extent the common law, requires that compulsory rights are enforceable against the employer.
Corporate litigation in the United Kingdom is that part of UK company law which gives investors the right to sue the directors of a company, or vindicate another wrong to the company, particularly where the board of directors does not wish to act itself.
Vaughan v Barlow Clowes International Ltd [1991] EWCA Civ 11 is an English trusts law case, concerning tracing.
Administration in United Kingdom law is the main kind of procedure in UK insolvency law when a company is unable to pay its debts. The management of the company is usually replaced by an insolvency practitioner whose statutory duty is to rescue the company, save the business, or get the best result possible. While creditors with a security interest over all a company's assets could control the procedure previously through receivership, the Enterprise Act 2002 made administration the main procedure.
FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the FTC could make an antitrust challenge under the rule of reason against a so-called pay-for-delay agreement, also referred to as a reverse payment patent settlement. Such an agreement is one in which a drug patentee pays another company, ordinarily a generic drug manufacturer, to stay out of the market, thus avoiding generic competition and a challenge to patent validity. The FTC sought to establish a rule that such agreements were presumptively illegal, but the Court ruled only that the FTC could bring a case under more general antitrust principles permitting a defendant to assert justifications for its actions under the rule of reason.
In UK patent litigation, an Arrow declaration is a declaration or order sought, for reasons of legal certainty, from a court that a product to be launched was old or obvious in patent law terms at a particular date, so that the product cannot be affected by any later granted patent, which would itself necessarily also either lack novelty or inventive step. The order is named after Arrow Generics Ltd. v Merck & Co Inc [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat), in which it was originally suggested that this mechanism would be available as a declaratory relief. Such a declaration was granted for the first time in Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Company Ltd v Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd [2017] EWHC 395 (Pat), Patents Court, England, 3 March 2017.
↑ Kabushi Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment Inc v Owen (t/a Neo Technologies) [2002] EWHC 45 (Ch)
↑ In the matter of application no. 2104259 by the BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION to Register a series of three marks in Classes 9, 16, 25 and 41 AND in the matter of Opposition Thereto under No 48452 by the Metropolitan Police Authority 14 August 2002.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
