Patent litigation can be both technically and legally complex, and involve some of the most valuable assets of a business. It is often multi-country, which brings additional challenges. As a firm of specialist solicitors and patent attorneys, we are able to combine the complementary skills of both professions to provide clients with a first class and cost effective service to resolve their patent disputes.
Our solicitors have extensive expertise in acting in high profile, high value patent litigation, arbitration and mediation, with cases in all UK courts and across a wide range of industries and technical disciplines. We are also experienced in advising clients in, and co-ordinating, multi-jurisdictional disputes involving courts in Europe, Asia and the United States.
Our patent attorneys and patent attorney litigators are highly experienced in oppositions as well as in supporting clients with their patent disputes around the world, with several acting as trusted advisers for clients in that role, providing both legal and technical assistance.
We have in-depth, high level technical expertise and knowledge which we can call on as needed, and have experience in all technical fields. We can also provide the skills of an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Group Accredited Mediator in civil and commercial mediation.
IAM Patent 1000 (2014) comments that: "Showcasing itself as one of Europe's most progressive attorney firms, D Young & Co continues to invest in its contentious capabilities: the recent hire of senior IP practitionerRichard Willoughby from Rouse was a bold move. Big-picture thinker Willoughby is heralded by overseas commentators as 'an experienced IP practitioner with remarkable patent litigation skill in all technical fields, but particularly in life sciences'. He joins fellow litigator Ian Starr, 'a lawyer you can confidently entrust your most valuable assets to'."
Cases in which members of our patent litigation team have acted include:
- Windsurfing v Tabur Marine (windsurfers; inventive step)
- The Procter & Gamble Company v Peaudouce (disposable diapers)
- Allied Colloids v American Cyanamid (polymer chemistry)
- Intel v UMC (microprocessors)
- Lubrizol v Esso Petroleum (lubricant additives; prior user rights)
- Tyco v Tomy (magnetic image displays)
- Kimberly-Clark v The Procter & Gamble Company (disposable diapers)
- The Procter & Gamble Company v Lever Brothers (detergents; patent amendment)
- Tercica and Genetech v Insmed (insulin-like growth factor binding protein)
- Philips v LG (digital image encoding)
- Arrow v Akzo Nobel/Organon (polymorphism)
- Triumph Actuation Systems v Aeroquip Vickers (aircraft power transfer units)
- Intervet v Merial (porcine circovirus 2 vaccine)
- GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals v Novartis (meningococcal vaccines)
- Mylan and Glenmark v The Wellcome Foundation (malaria combination therapy)
- Omnipharm v Merial (spot-on flea treatment formulation; 'lack of standing' in France)