Your Team
Piers Acland QC
Piers is an internationally renowned specialist in the field of contentious intellectual property (IP) law. Called to the Bar in 1993, his practice encompasses all aspects of IP including patents, trade marks, passing off, copyright and related rights, registered and unregistered designs, and breach of confidence.
He has represented numerous high-profile clients in the courts and tribunals at all levels, including the High Court and the Court of Appeal, as well as before the European Patent Office. He is frequently instructed by in-house Counsel and by patent agents. He also appears in the Patents County Court (the cost-capped alternative to the Patents Court of the High Court) representing a range of small and medium sized businesses.
Piers has a strong scientific background and accepts instructions across a wide variety of technology areas. Before training for the Bar, he gained a First Class degree in Biochemistry from University College London and also holds a PhD in Molecular Virology. He is especially in-demand for cases involving chemical and pharmaceutical patents.
Chambers and Partners underlines Piers’ outstanding reputation, remarking that he “gets rave reviews across the board” for his “outstanding capabilities as a leading IP barrister, particularly when it comes to technically complex patent disputes.” Sources also say he is “probably the cleverest, most insightful and most dynamic specialist you'll come across; not just technically first-class, but incredibly gifted and highly respected by the judges." He is also highly recommended in the Legal 500 where he is described as "one of the stars of the future," and "a supremely skilful advocate". He was shortlisted for IP/IT Silk of the Year at the Chambers Bar Awards 2011.
Piers is based in London and when not working, likes to spend as much time as possible with his wife and three children.
Notable cases
Pro-Tec v Specialised Covers [2011] EWPCC 023 – Patents County Court, design right in caravan covers
Convatec v Smith & Nephew [2011] EWHC 2039 – patents for wound dressings, validity and infringement
Cephalon v Orchid [2011] EWHC 1591 – patents for drug formulation, validity and infringement
Norbrook [2011] – Technical Board of Appeal, EPO, formulation patent for insecticide
Actavis v Novartis [2010] EWCA Civ 82 – Court of Appeal, sustained release
formulation of fluvastatin, novelty and obviousness.
Blinx v Blinkbox [2010] – trade mark infringement, interim injunction.
Mars Inc [2009] – Technical Board of Appeal, EPO, patent for cocoa extracts containing
procyanidins.
Leo v Sandoz [2009] EWCA Civ 1188 – Court of Appeal, patent for vitamin D
analogue, novelty, obviousness.
Laboratorios Almirall v Boehringer [2009] FSR 12 – patents for combinations of
anticholinergic drugs and beta agonists, novelty, obviousness, insufficiency, method
of treatment.
Edwards v Cook [2009] FSR 27 – patent for artificial, heart valves, novelty,
obviousness, loss of priority.
Dyson Technologies v Samsung [2009] FSR 15 – patents for cyclonic vacuum
cleaners, novelty, obviousness, amendment, added matter.
CoreValve v Edwards [2009] FSR 8 – patent for artificial heart valves, novelty,
obviousness, insufficiency, infringement, experimental use defence.
Napp v Ratiopharm [2009] RPC 18 – Court of Appeal, patents for sustained release
formulations of oxycodone, obviousness, added matter, infringement.
Oxonica v Neuftec [2009] EWCA Civ 668 – Court of Appeal, construction of a patent
and know how licence.
LB Europe v Smurfit Bag in Box [2008] EWHC 510 (Pat) – inquiry as to damages for patent infringement.
Actavis v Janssen [2008] FSR 35 – patent for nebivolol, novelty, obviousness,
anticipation by prior disclosure.
LB Europe v Smurfit Bag in Box [2008] EWHC 510 (Pat) – inquiry as to damages for
patent infringement.
Actavis v Merck [2008] 1 All ER 196, Court of Appeal – pharmaceutical patent,
method of medical treatment, novelty and obviousness.
European Central Bank v Document Security Systems Inc [2008] EWCA Civ 192,
Court of Appeal – patent for preventing manufacture of counterfeit currency, added
matter.
Cantor Gaming Ltd v GameAccount [2008] FSR 4 – copyright in computer software,
whether injunctive relief appropriate.