Edward specialises in intellectual property law and disputes with a scientific or technical element. He is regularly instructed as a junior in high value disputes in the High Court, led both by senior counsel from Hogarth and also from other chambers. In relation to lower value disputes, particularly those in the IPEC, he often acts without a leader.
Edward has experience of cases in a wide variety of fields such as pharmaceuticals, medical devices, vapes, video coding, catalysis, polymers, cosmetics, cryptocurrency, fashion, wireless telecoms, DSL, fibre optics, and large format analogue cameras.
Prior to joining Chambers Edward was an associate in the IP litigation team at Hogan Lovells, so he understands well what clients want from counsel. He also knows the value to clients of pragmatic advice, having spent time seconded in-house to the pharmaceutical company Merck Sharp & Dohme.
Edward has a first class degree in Natural Sciences from the University of Cambridge (ranking 3 of 143 in his class in Biological and Biomedical Sciences) and a distinction from the University of Oxford in the Law and Practice of Intellectual Property. His work has been published in the Oxford Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice and in the European Intellectual Property Review. Additionally, he is one of few at the IP bar to have studied accounting, economics or finance, which he did while at Cambridge’s Judge Business School, where he was awarded first class honours in Management Studies.
Edward has worked on disputes in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the European Court of Justice, as well as in the UKIPO and the EPO. He also has experience of advising in relation to the validity and essentiality of Standard Essential Patents alongside technical experts, including review of working group submissions.
Edward maintains strong scientific interests outside of his legal work and is a member of an interdisciplinary group interested in the implementation and effect of the human right to scientific progress under Article 27 of the United Nation’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights / Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
You can read Edward’s blog on intellectual property law and procedure at cronan.co.uk.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v Phillip Morris Products SA  EWHC 1997 (Pat) – Edward acted for Phillip Morris in this trial in relation to four patents relating to systems for heating tobacco using thin-film heater elements, led by Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC and Tom Alkin.
Nokia v Oppo, Oneplus and Realme – Edward acts for Nokia in the UK arm of this multi-jurisdiction FRAND dispute.
Mitsubishi & Sisvel v Archos and others – Edward was instructed by the Claimants on the first technical trial in this multi-party FRAND dispute, which settled shortly before trial. Edward continues to act for the Claimants in both the technical and FRAND sides of the proceedings, for example in  EWHC 889 (Pat).
Philip Morris v British American Tobacco  EWHC 537 (Pat) – Edward was junior to Iain Purvis QC and Tom Alkin in Philip Morris’ successful claim to revoke two BAT patents on the grounds of obviousness and added matter
TBD (Owen Holland) Limited v G2A Limited and others  EWCA Civ 1182 – Edward acted for the Defendants in this landmark Court of Appeal decision regarding the execution of search orders covering digital materials, litigation privilege, and permission to bring committal proceedings.
Shenzen Carku Technology Co. v The NOCO Company  EWHC 2104 (Pat) – Edward was junior to Hugo Cuddigan QC in this application for summary judgment and an interim declaration of non-infringement of a patent relating to circuit design in car battery jump-starters. The claim is due for trial in 2022.
TOT v Vodafone, Edward is instructed by Spanish telecoms innovator TOT in its patent infringement and breach of confidence claim against Vodafone, led by Michael Bloch QC. TOT successfully resisted Vodafone’s jurisdiction challenge, see  EWHC 46 (Pat).
Molavi v Hibbert and others  EWHC 121 (Ch);  4 WLR 46;  WLR(D) 58, Edward acted for the screenwriter Nigel McCrery in this case regarding copyright infringement and breach of confidence relating to the BBC drama Silent Witness.
Emtelle v Hexatronic, Edward acted for Emtelle in this case relating to two patents for inventions regarding blowable fibre optic cables. This case featured substantial infringement and validity experiments. It settled shortly before trial in early 2020.
Apple v Conversant, Edward was instructed on behalf of Apple in relation to a patent trial concerning the remote control functionality of OS X, now settled.
TBD v G2A Limited  EWHC 2390 (Ch), a copyright and breach of confidence case in the aviation industry. Edward was junior to Nicholas Caddick QC in this hearing relating to conduct of a search order.
TQ Delta v ZyXEL, Edward acted on behalf of ZyXEL in these patent infringement proceedings in xDSL modem technologies. Edward also worked on the FRAND licence proceedings, which were the first in the English Courts to look at SEP licensing terms under the ITU RAND obligation, prior to their being vacated following the court of appeal’s judgment in  EWCA Civ 1277.
Edward has also acted without a leader in the UKIPO and IPEC in proceedings including:
- Currentbody.com v Beauty Solutions Trading Limited: Successfully obtained an injunction to restrain infringement of copyright in website layout and code following Ds’ failure to file a defence.
- Repairtech Services (UK) Limited v Clipper Logistics: Successful trade mark opposition based on rights in passing off, featuring issues of concurrent use
- Anglian Windows Limited v Anglian Roofing and Building Limited: Successfully obtained injunction to restrain trade mark infringement in the IPEC.
- Morley’s (Fast Foods) Limited v Nanthakumar and others: trade mark and passing off proceedings between two fast-food franchises.
- Somfy Activities SA (Appellant) v Building Robotics Inc.: Appeal to the appointed person in relation to issues of inherent distinctiveness.
As a solicitor:
Liqwd Inc. v L’Oreal  EWHC 1394 (Pat), patent infringement proceedings concerning a maleic acid additive for the prevention of damage to hair in bleaching, and  EWHC 1845 (Pat) concerning the admissibility of evidence after trial.
HTC v IPCOM  EWCA 90, concerning an SEP relating to syntax elements used in 3G telecoms.
MSD v Shionogi  EWHC 2989 (Pat), patent infirngement and validity proceedings concerning the small molecule HIV integrase inhibitor Raltegravir.
Contributed to as a pupil:
PPL v Ellis  EWCA Civ 2812, concerning the availability of additional damages for copyright infringement and the interaction of the CDPA 1988 with the IP Enforcement Directive.
Poul Chang v Bailcast  EWHC 3432 (Ch), the first case to consider the interaction of the Community Designs Regulation and the related actions provisions of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) in the English Courts.
AMS Neve v Heritage Audio (C-172/18) This case in the CJEU related to online targeting and jurisdiction under the EU Trade Marks Regulation.
Rockwool v Knauf (O/291/19) This revocation action against two patents took place in the UKIPO and raised issues in relation to enablement, obviousness, and the applicability of the law of plausibility to non-medical inventions.
Qualifications and Regulations
BA, Honours, First Class, Gonville & Caius College, University of Cambridge
Graduate Diploma in Law, BPP University
Legal Practice Course, BPP University
Postgraduate Diploma in Intellectual Property Law and Practice, Distinction, University of Oxford
Bar Transfer Test, BPP University
Edward is a self-employed, independent barrister whose practice is governed by the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales. He is registered with the Bar Standards Board of England and Wales (Bar Ref: 70543)
He has professional indemnity insurance provided by the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund (BMIF Ref: 2190/063). Please refer to the BMIF website for full details of the world-wide cover provided, and the BMIF’s contact details.
“Proving Patent Infringement to Evidence Sufficiency, and the Value of Declaratory Relief after a licensing relationship breaks down”; European Intellectual Property Review.
“Plausibility after Warner-Lambert v Actavis: Fantastic legal tests and where to find them”; Oxford Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
“Patent Box: Incentivising UK Innovation; An industry report on the Patent Box initiative and its impact on UK innovation” in conjunction with Merks & Clerk and the Cambridge Design Partnership.
“UK: Drop in the ocean – Employee’s invention not profitable enough for compensation”; Limegreen IP News
Edward’s interests comprise skiing, cycling, french food, red wine, karaoke and technically feasible combinations thereof.